Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY WIDOWS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Film Studios (Unused Space)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many film studios are idle at the present time; how many sound stages are idle; and what he estimates to be the footage of stage space unused.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Excluding stages which were damaged or disused during the war and have not yet been recommissioned, the only sound stages now idle at studios which regularly make feature films are two temporarily vacant stages at M.G.M. (British) Studios at Elstree, two at Hammersmith, and one at Southall. The approximate floor space of these stages is 40,000 square feet.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that there are 148,000 square feet of floor space not being used a present, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it comes about that when the British film industry is protected virtually 100 per cent. there

should be this appalling amount of unused space?

Mr. Wilson: A number of stages are not being used, because they are not fit to be used. I have been giving careful consideration to the question of whether the British film industry is being fully used at present, and I am having a meeting in a few days with both sides of the industry, to make certain that they make full use of their productive capacity.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the importance of this industry, would the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a working party and getting something done?

Timber

Mr. Bossom: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many standards of constructional timber for houses were imported in the first six months of this year; and how many were imported in the corresponding six months of 1946.

Mr. H. Wilson: Imports of hewn, sawn, and planed or dressed softwood were 374,476 standards in the first six months of 1947 as compared with 273,299 standards in the corresponding period of 1946. This material has a wide range of uses other than constructional, but a substantial proportion would be suitable for the latter purposes.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that houses cannot be built without timber, and that without houses it will not be possible for the export drive to be satisfactorily carried out? The workers must have houses in which to live, and they are not getting them.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of these standards came from the United States and Canada?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice but a considerable proportion of the timber which has arrived in the last two or three months has come from the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Bossom: Knowing the great demand, why was more of this timber not imported?

Mr. Wilson: It was a question of the amount available, the amount which could be obtained in the world.

Mr. Bossom: Any amount of it was available.

Mr. Parkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an approximate timber budget for the next 12 months, indicating the amounts required to cover the present housing programme, other building, allocations to the furniture industry and other uses; stating what amounts of imports, from which countries are already promised by contract or trade treaty; and from what other countries supplies are known to be available, at what prices or under what conditions.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am afraid that it would be impracticable to prepare a timber budget such as that suggested at present as, apart from other considerations, the quantities of timber which will be available for export in several of our most important overseas sources of supply and also the level of prices are not yet determined. Our timber imports in the coming year are, however, likely to be limited by currency rather than by availability and the cuts which have already been announced will mean that imports will fall short of essential requirements.

Mr. Parkin: While I appreciate the difficulties which my right hon. Friend has outlined, may I ask him if he will recall the approximate budget, and bear in mind that publicity given to specific targets and requirements is likely to be much more effective in stimulating the production drive in this country than overall figures?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but while we are in negotiation, and shall be in negotiation, with many of the countries from whom we need to get timber, I do not think that it would be helpful to publish too much detail of our requirements.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the purchase of timber from these countries by bulk purchase, and, if so, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if it were allowed to go through the ordinary trade channels he would get more timber at a cheaper price?

Mr. Wilson: Timber is bought by the Timber Control by the method of bulk purchase. I am certain that if it were to go through the ordinary private channels of trade, our position, both with regard

to timber supplies and timber prices, would be far worse than it is today.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is my right hon. Friend able to say how much timber there is in the country at the present time?

Mr. Wilson: I would like notice of that question, but there is at present rather more in stock than there was at this time last year.

Mr. Marples: Is the Minister satisfied that the stocks of timber will be sufficient to honour the licences given for building purposes?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. With the stocks we now have, together with imports already on the way, or scheduled to arrive.

War Damage Payments

Mr. Thurtle: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to name a date for the payment of agreed business war damage claims in respect of such things as plant and machinery, seeing that some of these have now been outstanding for over seven years.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 13th November to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton).

Mr. Thurtle: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a great hardship to these people to have to wait so long, and if they are prepared to give an undertaking that they would not use their money for the purpose of buying plant and machinery, would he make arrangements whereby they could get the capital they require in order to live?

Mr. Wilson: I think that my hon. Friend knows that we have made it clear that the money can be paid where replacement or repair of goods destroyed or damaged is expedient in the public interest, or where payment is necessary to avoid undue hardship.

Mr. Butcher: Is it not a fact that these people paid premiums for this insurance, and should not they receive the amount of their loss under it?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, in time.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware


that many persons whose business equipment and office furniture were destroyed by bombing as early as 1940 have long ago purchased all the furniture they needed to re-equip the new offices where they now conduct their business; and if he will arrange to pay war damage compensation under the business scheme in such cases without waiting for improvement in the supply position.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. The Board of Trade are empowered to pay any claim in whole or in part only if they are satisfied that the replacement or repair of the goods is expedient in the public interest, but I am, of course, prepared to consider any particular cases which the hon. and learned Member has in mind.

Mr. Marlowe: Was not the whole object of withholding this compensation from those entitled to it, to discourage them from buying furniture and equipment, and where they have already bought it, what is the purpose of still withholding compensation?

Mr. Wilson: If they were to be paid, it would involve paying out to a large number of other people who have not yet bought it.

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman address his mind to the Question? I did not ask about others, I asked about those who had already replaced their furniture and equipment.

Mr. Wilson: As I have said, it would be, obviously, very unfair to pay it to some and not to others.

Glass Industry (Soda Ash Supplies)

Colonel Ponsonby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in spite of the increased demand on glass manufacturers for supplies of glass and glassware, especially bottles and jars, required by other industries for essential home requirements and in achieving their export targets, the glass industry's requirements for soda ash are still unsatisfied; and what steps are being taken to increase supplies of soda ash to enable new machines imported chiefly from the U.S.A. to be brought into operation.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am aware that, although the allocation of soda ash for the manufacture of glass containers and

general glass ware was raised last June, it is insufficient to meet in full the increasing requirements of the industry. The distribution of soda ash supplies is at present under review in the light of the expanding needs of the various consuming industries and of export. I regret, however, that there is no prospect of any appreciable increase in the total home production of soda ash until new capacity, planned to be ready in 1949, comes into operation.

Colonel Ponsonby: Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no diversion of soda ash for export until the needs of the home producers are fully satisfied?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. I am sorry I cannot give that assurance, because soda ash is one of the most valuable goods in bilateral negotiations with certain of the countries with whom we are now in negotiation.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend considered getting an extra supply of soda ash from Germany?

Mr. Wilson: I should like notice of that question.

Anglo-Danish Trade Discussions

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations have taken place with the Danish Government regarding the export of coal from this country to Denmark during 1948.

Mr. H. Wilson: During the discussions held in London last September, the Danish Delegation referred to Denmark's wish to import various commodities, including coal, from the United Kingdom. No agreement was, of course, reached in these discussions because of difficulties over food prices, and there have been no subsequent trade negotiations with Denmark.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his further attention, and when the time comes to export coal, will he give Denmark a high priority, so that fats can be brought to this country in order to feed our people?

Mr. Wilson: Coal was not an issue over which the recent talks broke down. We have coal very much in mind in connection with any exports which there will be next year.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Hare we handled these negotiations with greater courtesy than those that were handled by the Minister of Food?

Foreign Buyers (Facilities)

Mr. Austin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the importance of developing export trade, he will consider whether foreign buyers should continue to be left to their own devices in placing orders with individual firms as at present obtains or whether further facilities and guidance should be provided by instituting a Government export marketing agency, with full powers and responsibilities for canalising trade in accordance with the nation's requirements.

Mr. H. Wilson: While export trade is conducted directly between United Kingdom firms and their overseas customers or their agents, a great deal of information and guidance is already provided by Government Departments, so as to ensure that these activities are conducted to the fullest extent in the national interest.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that individual buyers from abroad, visiting factories are being given the treatment they deserve, with a view to helping the export market?

Mr. Wilson: I have been very much concerned with this question in connection with some of the bilateral negotiations, but I am quite satisfied now that the facilities given are the best that can be given without giving some countries undue priority over others.

Clothing Coupons

Mrs. Middleton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider giving a few extra clothing coupons to people of adolescent age who, because of the fact that they have outgrown clothing bought during the rationing years, have no reserves which, by means of renovation, can be used again during the present emergency.

Mr. H. Wilson: The supplements for young people between the ages of 16½ and 18 were increased for this purpose in 1946, and it is not possible to make a further increase.

Bulgaria (Trade Relations)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether

it is his intention to resume normal trade relations with Bulgaria; what approaches have been made to the Bulgarian Government in this connection; and with what success.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I propose to remove the wartime restrictions on trade with Bulgaria in the very near future and the Bulgarian Government has been so informed. Opportunities for trade are very limited since, according to my present information, Bulgaria has little to offer which this country needs.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the Minister state whether Bulgaria is in a position to export tobacco to this country?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. In common with certain other Balkan countries, Bulgaria is in a position to offer tobacco, but, as I have informed the House, our stocks of Balkan tobacco are considerably more than the public want to take at present.

Roumania (Trade Relations)

Major Beamish: asked the President of the Board of Trade what approaches have been made to the Roumanian Government with a view to the resumption of normal trade relations; what progress has been made; and on what date the first such approach was made.

Mr. H. Wilson: Wartime restrictions on trade in goods with Roumania were removed in April last. As to the possibilities of a fuller resumption of trade, I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the reply which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Food, proposes to give to him today to a related Question.

Major Beamish: To what extent is the Minister working in conjunction with the Minister of Food?

Mr. Wilson: In very close conjunction. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman no doubt knows, a visit from a Ministry of Food representative disclosed the fact that there was a quantity of grain available for export to certain countries, but this export was made conditional on the supply of particular goods from whichever country was to receive the grain, and we are still awaiting a reply from the Roumanian Government who were requested for a list of the goods which they make a condition of agreement.

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister say whether anything has been arranged to try to get some of their surplus timber?

Mr. Wilson: We have made a number of inquiries of them, but we cannot make any purchases or trade negotiations with them until we know the goods which they are making a condition of agreement.

Ladder-Proof Stockings

Mrs. Nichol: asked the President of the Board of Trade what experiments have been made in the production of ladder-proof nylon and artificial silk stockings; and, in view of the importance of such a process in saving yarn and coupons, whether he will take steps to make such hosiery available in the shops.

Mr. H. Wilson: I understand that one engineering firm is engaged in the development of a machine for the production of ladder resisting stockings and if these, or any other experiments which manufacturers may be carrying on privately, result in a satisfactory method of producing more durable stockings, I will certainly do what I can to arrange for them to be produced for sale here and overseas.

Mrs. Nichol: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, I can assure him that as stockings are liable to run at any time, their mending is the greatest single worry of every woman in this country.

Mr. Wilson: I should not wish to raise hopes unduly, because the firm concerned say it will take some time to finish their researches and development.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many stockings were laddered this morning in the vicinity of Palace Yard?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

Mining Timber (Prices)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade, since, as a result of the failure to buy centrally and distribute all stores without the aid of middlemen, the costs of pitwood needed for coal production have been rising, and pitwood is now costing 4s. a ton of coal produced against 2s. 6d. a ton last year, what steps he intends taking.

Mr. H. Wilson: Practically all imported mining timber is purchased centrally by the Timber Control and there has been no change in the controlled prices fixed by the Control of Timber (No. 45) (Mining Timber Prices) Order, 1947, which came into operation on 27th January last. The increases on that date, which were made with the agreement of the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board, were necessary to bring the prices of mining timber on to an economic basis. The price to the mines of both home-produced and imported mining timber had previously been subsidised. On the same date the discount allowed to merchants for distributing mining timber from National Stock was reduced and is now 2¼ per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister agree that if this pitwood were bought centrally by bulk purchase it would result in a lower price of coal?

Mr. Wilson: This sort of timber is bought centrally by bulk purchase and distributed within this country on behalf of the Timber Control by these merchants. We have considered that so far it has been more economical to do it in that way.

Utility Cloth (Marking)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the method of marking the rolls of utility grade cloth and fabric used for the making-up of men's suiting, ladies' outer garments, men's shirtings, Manchester broadcloths, furnishing fabrics and net fabrics.

Mr. H. Wilson: Utility cloth must under S.R. & O. 1942, No. 1012, be marked by means of a transfer or stamp at each end of a length, except in the case of lengths not exceeding 3¼ yards, when a mark at one end is sufficient. Utility net must under S.R. & O. 1946, No. 1296, be marked by means of a securely stitched label of durable material at each end of the piece, except in the case of pieces not exceeding nine square yards in area, when a mark at one end is sufficient. In the case of both cloth and net, the material may be marked at intervals throughout the piece.

Mr. Cooper: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that fabrics bought on Government account during the war


were marked all along the selvage edge and the fact was a deterrent to the misuse of the material? Could he say if the same process of marking cloth could not now be used as a reasonable safeguard?

Mr. Wilson: That has been very much considered, but I am prepared to look at it again.

Gramophone Records

Mr. Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the basis on which the decision was made to allocate supplies of raw materials for gramophone records recently ordered by the American publishers, caused by the pending strike of the American Musicians Union announced for 1st December; and what is the quantity of the annual production at the present time of records being manufactured in this country from the present shellac allocation required for the issue of recordings made by British artistes of British copyright songs and music.

Mr. H. Wilson: Raw materials for gramophone records are in free supply and there is no system of allocation. The first part of the Question does not therefore arise. No separate figures are available to show the production of recordings made by British artistes of British copyright songs and music.

Mr. Cooper: If there is any intention to make raw materials available for gramophone records for export in the future on account of the suggestions made in the Question, would he see if it is possible to persuade purchasers to accept British compositions on one side so as to earn royalties for export purposes as well as for raw materials?

Mr. Wilson: There is no question of making an allocation of raw materials available for they are a free supply, but I will be glad to take up the second suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Pit Head Cost

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what is the pit head cost of saleable coal for the eight divisions of the National Coal Board for the six months ended 30th June; and what

profit or loss per ton has been made in each division;
(2) what is the cost per ton at the pit head of saleable coal raised for the northern division for the six months ending 30th June, 1947; and what were the comparative costs for Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland, separately, for the six months' period to 30th June, 1946.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer this Question and No. 27 together by referring him to the reply I gave him on 13th November.

Mr. Osborne: Does that mean that the Minister has not the information, or that he has the information and will not publish it? If it is the second, why is he afraid to give the public the information?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, I have not got the information, but it will all be published in due course.

Record Output, Glen Rhondda

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give details of the record production by Glen Rhondda miners for September this year; if he will state the percentage of increase over the average production per man which this shows; and what steps are being taken to take national advantage of the example of Glen Rhondda.

Mr. Gaitskell: The average output per manshift (overall) at Glen Rhondda mines during the five weeks ended 4th October, 1947, was 1.007 tons compared with 0.839 tons in the comparable period of 1946, an increase of 20 per cent. Information about the splendid performance of the Glen Rhondda mines was featured in the November issue of the magazine "Coal" which is circulated throughout the industry.

Mr. Shepherd: As example is very important, could not more use be made of this good example, and could the Minister say how it is that these men were able to obtain this total with no mechanical cutting at all and why there is the disparity between the national level and this one?

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member is mistaken if he does not appreciate that there is a considerable spurt going on at the


national level at the moment, and while I strongly endorse the suggestion in regard to this splendid output at Glen Rhondda, I would not have him think that there are not others who are also doing well.

Anthracite Deliveries, Maidstone

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tons of anthracite coal, required for Aga, or similar cookers or stoves, have been shipped into the Maidstone district in the last six months.

Mr. Gaitskell: One thousand, eight hundred and two tons of anthracite and manufactured fuel were delivered to merchants in the Maidstone district during the coal summer. I regret that information is not available showing separately the tonnages suitable for Aga or similar stoves.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that this is totally insufficient to enable people who are using this type of cooker to cook their own food and that in the near future they will be unable to cook their rations which the Ministry of Food permits them to have?

Mr. Gaitskell: I realise that there is a shortage of anthracite, but if any merchant in the hon. Member's constituency is short he should approach the local fuel officer who will do all he can to help.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that this shortage is not peculiar to the Maidstone district, but that all country districts are short of anthracite and that people cannot get any for their stoves while they see unlimited supplies going into Service camps?

Nationalisation (Compensation Procedure)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to make a statement on the payment of compensation to coalowners whose mines have been nationalised.

Mr. Gaitskell: The procedure laid down by the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, for the valuation of the assets of former coalowners and the payment of compensation therefor will necessarily take some considerable time. I propose to circulate a summary of the present position in the OFFICIAL REPORT and I

am prepared to make further statements on the position from time to time.

Mr. Hughes: How long will it be before we know the worst about the compensation that has got to be paid to the coalowners? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one forecast that one big coal combine is to get £11 million in compensation, which represents £2 for every pound share? When will my hon. Friend be in a position to tell us something definite?

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend surely is aware that the global sum for compensation in the coal industry was settled by the tribunal some time ago, and there remains the figure to be paid for the ancillaries. That will take some time.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister consider withdrawing the global sum in the meantime?

Following is the summary:

Central and District Valuation Boards: The Central Valuation Board, provided for under Section 12 of the Act, has been formed, and will commence its sessions in January, 1948. At the same time negotiations are proceeding to secure the most suitable professional and technical men to serve on the District Valuation Boards.

Statements of Interests: The Statements of Interests submitted by Owners are in course of examination with the object of constituting compensation units for submission to District Valuation Boards.

Cash Compensation for Stocks and Stores: It is anticipated that cash payments of substantial sums on account of stocks of products of colliery production activities and of consumable and spare stores will commence early in 1948, and are expected to amount to approximately £10 million by the ensuing end of March.

Interim Income-Revenue Payments: The machinery for the payment of Interim Income - Revenue Payments—under Section 22 (3) of the Act was put into motion on 22nd September, 1947, the date on which the relative Regulations came into force. Provisional payments of over £3 million have been made to date, representing approximately 50 per cent. in number of possible claims. The balance of claims for Revenue Payments are in course of investigation by the Independent Accountants.

The Ministry is in close touch with the Mining Association of Great Britain, the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain, and with the National Coal Board on these matters.

Opencast Mining (Agricultural Land)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the total acreage of land requisitioned for opencast coal on which work is in progress, has not yet begun and has not yet been restored; how much of this land was agricultural at the time of requisitioning; what additional acreage of land is to be requisitioned; what proportion of this will be agricultural; what is the total acreage requisitioned since 1941 and what proportion was agricultural.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the answer contains a large number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister give an assurance that when agricultural land is to be requisitioned the decision will be notified to the farmers concerned, so that they may have some idea "of their prospects for the next few years?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:

On 31st October, 30,629 acres were under requisition for opencast coal operations, of which 27,070 acres were agricultural land. Work was actually in progress on 20,663 acres, of which 17,911 acres were agricultural land. Work had not then begun on 1,751 acres of which 1,541 acres were agricultural land. Restoration was in progress on 8,215 acres of which 7,618 acres were agricultural land. It

HOUSE COAL SUPPLIES (52 WEEKS ENDED 26TH APRIL, 1947).


Area.
Percentage of allocation received by merchants after allowing for colliery holidays.
Maximum permitted supply to consumers.
Approximate average delivery to consumers.


Including deliveries under licence.
Excluding licences.




cwt.
cwt.
cwt.


Northern regions, including Wales and Scotland
95·3
50
46
43


Southern regions, excluding London
93·2
34
33
29


London region
93·8
34
26
25

is expected that a further area of the order of 50,000 acres will be needed up to the end of 1951, of which about 90 per cent. will probably be agricultural land. The total area requisitioned from 1941 to 31st October, 1947, was 38,495 acres, of which 34,389 acres were agricultural land.

Domestic Supplies

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of the annual allocation of domestic coal supplied to the northern and southern regions, and the London region, respectively, during the coal year 1st May, 1946, to 30th April, 1947; what should have been the annual average delivery per registered consumer in each of these regions; and what are the likely annual average deliveries for domestic consumers during the present fuel year, in view of the increased coal output and increased stocks in merchants' yards.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Pursey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allocation of coal for London has always been low and has caused a considerable amount of hardship? As the position is now easier, would he consider increasing the allocation per registered customer by half a hundredweight per week, which would only amount to 1,500 tons per week, and would help considerably?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would naturally be extremely glad to increase the allocation of house coal if that were possible, but we have to balance against other needs, including the needs of the export trade.

Following is the information:

While I will, of course, keep the matter under review, I doubt whether an increase in domestic supplies will be possible during the present coal year, apart from that necessary to provide for the increased number of registrations. Domestic consumers may, therefore, expect to receive about the same as during 1946–47.

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of domestic coal consumers in the Borough of Wandsworth registered with Hall and Co., Battersea Rise; the number to whom the full 15 cwt. summer allocation was delivered between 1st May and 31st October; the number who received less than the London average delivery of 10 cwt. and the reasons; and whether he will have the records of this coal office examined to ascertain how available coal has been disposed of, with a view to a more equitable future distribution to registered consumers.

Mr. Gaitskell: Messrs. Hall and Company have 1,430 domestic registrations in the borough of Wandsworth. Of those who placed orders, 77 received 15 cwt. of coal and coalite, and 567 less than 10 cwt. I am informed that the latter consist largely of persons who, owing to lack of storage space or for other reasons, are accustomed to draw the bulk of their supplies during the winter. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am informed that the local fuel overseer has received comparatively few recent complaints from consumers registered with this merchant and I am not satisfied that an examination of the kind suggested is called for.

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the amount of coke supplied to registered domestic consumers in Hull, out of the 20 cwt. allocation, during the summer six months, 1st May to 31st October, by the British Gas Light Company, East Hull Gas Company and other merchants, respectively; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the supply of coke to prefabricated houses in Hull with boilers made to burn coke.

Mr. Gaitskell: During the period referred to, deliveries of gas coke to all controlled premises registered with the British Gas Light Company and the East Hull Gas Company averaged 10.6 cwt.

and 13.0 cwt., respectively. Average figures of deliveries to coke consumers by other merchants are not available. With regard to the second part of the Question, my regional officer is ascertaining particulars of the registration of prefabricated houses with each merchant, so as to ensure fair and equitable distribution to these houses of the limited supplies of coke available.

American Coal (Imports)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total tonnage of American coal imported to date, and the cost of same in dollars.

Mr. Gaitskell: Six hundred thousand tons, costing 6,355,000 dollars f.o.b. Freight charges amounting to 668,000 American dollars and 292,000 Canadian dollars were also incurred. The remaining freight charges were paid for in sterling.

Mr. W. R. Williams: What proportion of this coal is allocated to British railways? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that it is of the high quality necessary to meet the need?

Mr. Erroll: Why could it not all have come over in British bottoms, and so save a considerable amount of dollar expenditure?

Mr. Gaitskell: They were not available.

Coal Board Official (Labour Party Meeting)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether an invitation to address the Ratcliffe Open Forum on behalf of the Labour Party on 29th October, 1947, in his capacity as Labour Director, North-West Region, National Coal Board, was accepted by Mr. C. Plover; and what were the reasons for his non-attendance.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 13th November.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's reply, to which he has invited my attention, was merely a statement that the gentleman in question did not attend, will he now answer the question as to whether he accepted the invitation to take a place on a party platform in his official capacity?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, the question of whether or not Mr. Plover accepted the invitation is not my concern, nor is it for me to conduct an inquisition into the reasons why he chose not to attend, if he did not attend.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that in respect of senior officials of the Coal Board using their official positions to forward party ends, he does not care two hoots?

Mr. Gaitskell: Since Mr. Plover took no part in any political activity, it is quite clear that there can be no question of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petrol Allowances

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what saving he anticipates obtaining in the consumption of petrol from his recent decision to cancel the petrol allowance previously granted to civilian and military personnel on leave from overseas.

Mr. Gaitskell: No estimate can be given without a detailed examination of the records of the Regional Petroleum Offices, which would not be justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman came to his decision to abolish the grants without knowing how much could be saved, and, if that is so, how could he possibly have balanced the anticipated saving which he did not know against the inevitable hardship which he has caused?

Mr. Gaitskell: Obviously if no estimate was available it could not have been taken into account when a decision was made. As I have already pointed out to the hon. Member on earlier occasions, this decision was taken because, in view of the abolition of the basic ration, it was not considered reasonable and fair that this special allowance should continue to be granted.

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent allocations of petrol are being made to shooting parties for the purpose of travel to and from coverts and for bringing back game; and whether a condition is attached to

any such allocation that the food so procured is made available either to the general public or to public institutions.

Mr. Gaitskell: Where the use of public transport is not practicable, limited allowances of petrol are granted to shooting parties for short journeys when a substantial amount of game is likely to be made available for human consumption or where damage to crops would otherwise occur. No other conditions are attached to the allocation.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such game as is obtained by this means would add a very useful item of variety to the diet of sick and convalescent people? Therefore, will he enter into discussion with the Minister of Food in regard to the matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think it is really for me to decide what should happen to the game, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether car owners who live in towns and who wish to lay up their cars in the country are being granted a supplementary allowance for this one journey.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, in bona fide cases.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many additional staff were recruited by his Department to deal with the increased number of applications for supplementary petrol allowances; and what training they were given before they entered upon their duties.

Mr. Gaitskell: An additional 197 staff have been recruited during the past two months, and 60 officers borrowed from other branches of the Ministry and other Departments. Selected officers already serving in regional petroleum offices have been given a special course of training in assessment work, and been replaced in more routine duties by the new recruits.

Mr. Butcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of some of the extraordinary decisions that are being made in the regional petroleum offices at present?

Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt from time to time mistakes are made but, on the whole, they are doing very good work.

Heating Plants (Liquid Fuel)

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what changes of policy have taken place in connection with the issue of permits to convert domestic and industrial heating plants from solid to liquid fuel.

Mr. Gaitskell: My predecessor explained on the 12th June that the Government had decided against any further general extension of the coal-oil conversion scheme for the time being. The schemes already authorised will considerably increase our fuel oil requirements over the next few years and there is little prospect in present circumstances of being able to authorise more schemes.

Brigadier Mackeson: Could the Minister say if he anticipates having sufficient liquid fuel to give the same ration next year as he did last year to existing plants and to plants that will come into use?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I anticipate that there will be sufficient fuel in the country for those schemes which have been authorised.

Petrol Requirements (Sterling Area)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the total petrol requirements of the sterling area; and what quantity he purchased from areas outside the sterling group.

Mr. Gaitskell: For the year 1948, the requirements of motor spirit for the whole of the sterling area are estimated to be 9,400,000 tons. Three and a half million tons will be bought from American companies distributing in the sterling area. British companies whose production is estimated at nearly eight million tons are expected to distribute six million tons in the sterling area and to export 2½ to 3 million tons to other countries. This will involve the purchase of an additional half to one million tons from America.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that Abadan alone produces 20 million tons of crude oil a year, which in turn provides 16 million tons of petrol, so what happens to the other 7 million.

Mr. Gaitskell: The question relates to motor spirit and not to crude oil and I have given the right figures.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much petrol comes from Abadan, and, if he cannot do so now will he tell me if I put the Question down?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly.

Hire Cars (Radius Restrictions)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether hire cars are, in future, to be restricted to any particular radius; and whether the radius is the same for urban and rural districts.

Mr. Gaitskell: This matter is under consideration.

Shop Lighting (Christmas Season)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give permission for a reasonable increase in shop lighting for window displays in the Christmas season.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman amplify that answer, because shopkeepers are having a very difficult time and people are looking forward to a little cheerfulness?

Mr. Gaitskell: It would be very nice to have more lighting in the shops, but I do not think we can afford it at present.

Persian Oil (Supplies)

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made towards laying an oil pipeline from Abadan to the southern shore of the Persian Gulf to link up with the Trans-Iraq oil pipelines, and thus save four weeks on the round voyage of each tanker proceeding around the coast of Arabia through to the Mediterranean.

Mr. Gaitskell: The throughput capacities of existing oil pipelines from Iraq to the Mediterranean are already fully taken up and there is no proposal to connect them with the Abadan Refinery.

Dr. Segal: Does not the Minister agree that there is a strong case to be made out for laying down these pipelines?

Mr. Gaitskell: A pipeline to run from Abadan to the Mediterranean has been approved, but it is not linking up with other pipelines.

Dr. Segal: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is long overdue, and will he arrange to give it a high priority?

Mr. Gaitskell: It does not depend only on me; it is a joint affair between ourselves and the Americans.

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an estimate of the potential yield of new wells already bored in the neighbourhood of Masjid-i-Suleiman in Southern Persia; and if he is satisfied that these wells are being fully developed.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware that any new wells have been bored in the immediate neighbourhood of Masjid-i-Suleiman. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Dr. Segal: Will the Minister make some further investigations into this matter, as part of his efforts to restore the basic petrol ration?

Mr. Gaitskell: The restoration of the basic petrol ration would not, I think, be greatly affected by the boring of any new wells in that part of the world at the moment.

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on how many days oil has had to be pumped back into the wells of the Anglo-Iranian oilfields in southern Persia owing to lack of tanker tonnage and storage capacity; and what was the total quantity involved.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am informed that in the nine months ending 30th September, 1947, the quantity of oil products which has been pumped back into the wells of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Persia amounts to approximately 1,000,000 tons. This is largely due to lack of tanker tonnage and storage capacity. I have no information as to the number of days on which this operation took place in the period mentioned.

Dr. Segal: Is it not really scandalous that any oil at all should be pumped back into the wells? Is, it not as grotesque as having to put coal down a mine shaft?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not quite so grotesque as my hon. Friend supposes. It is, in fact, although not always on such a large scale at the moment, quite a regular operation, which has been

adopted in the past, whenever a particular oil product was in surplus supply.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he justifies giving detailed information about the administration of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which the Government do not control, although they own the majority of shares, while at the same time refusing to answer similar questions about coal mines in which they hold 100 per cent. of the capital?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is because I consider this of sufficient public importance to warrant my doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIST (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to introduce legislation providing for Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. This will be for consideration by the Select Committee set up on the Resolution of the House yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — NURSING SERVICES, FAR EAST (DEFENCE MEDAL)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to authorise the issue of Defence Medals to members of the Hong Kong Auxiliary Nursing Service and the Malayan Nursing Service, who were captured by the Japanese whilst on duty, in view of the fact that V.A.Ds. doing identical duty were awarded two war medals.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. The Governor-General, Malaya, who has been co-ordinating action on questions of this nature with the governors of certain territories in the Far East, including Hong Kong and Malaya, has been authorised to arrange for the award of the Defence Medal ribbon to members of the Auxiliary Nursing Service in Hong Kong and the corresponding service in Malaya who were properly enrolled and rendered at least one day's service in the periods from 8th December, 1941, to 25th December, 1941, and from 8th December, 1941, to 15th February, 1942, respectively.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this announcement will give great satisfaction in many quarters?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I am very pleased to make the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANCER RESEARCH (GOVERNMENT GRANTS)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Lord President of the Council what was the total grant made from Government funds for the purpose of cancer research in each of the last 20 years; and in what form it is proposed to continue these grants after the Public Health Act, 1947, comes into operation.

Mr. H. Morrison: Expenditure on cancer research from the Parliamentary grant-in-aid for the work of the Medical Research Council has been at the rate of approximately £6,000 per annum during the greater part of the period mentioned, this provision being, of course, supplementary to the much larger expenditure from the endowments and other resources of unofficial organisations concerned with this particular field. Expenditure from the same source in the financial year 1946–47 was about £12,000, and expenditure in the present financial year is estimated at £31,000 (including £14,000 of a non-recurrent nature). Substantial additional expenditure in the future has been approved for research on applications of atomic physics to the treatment of cancer. These activities are not affected by the National Health Service Act, 1946.

Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the whole of this period there has been a steady increase of deaths from cancer? Is he satisfied that the method of allocating a very large sum of money is the most satisfactory?

Mr. Morrison: It is the best we can do. As far as I know, everything is being done. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that we have not solved this problem, and if any hon. Member or anybody else has suggestions to make whereby improved methods of research might be conducted, I will be prepared to consider them.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is the sum mentioned sufficient for the legitimate

demands of those who are engaged in this research?

Mr. Morrison: I think so, in the light of the useful activities which can be conducted. My hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter I appreciate, will realise that very considerable sums are being spent elsewhere in the field of research, under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, hospitals, and what not. I do not think there is any difficulty about money, but I would be prepared to consider further developments if useful avenues of research were available to us.

Earl Winterton: In view of the implied criticism in the Question about this fund and the way the money is spent, may I ask hon. Members who are interested whether they are aware that, in the opinion of laymen, of hospital authorities, and of the highest members of the medical profession, this money is being admirably spent?

Mr. Morrison: That was my impression, and I am much obliged for what the noble Lord has said. It is certainly no good looking at a sum of money and merely asking whether it is enough. That question must be decided in relation to the good purposes for which the money can be spent.

Dr. Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some years there has been a substance called H.11 which has been used in private research work and upon which a considerable amount of money has been spent? Will he now ask the Medical Research Council to review the whole subject of this particular substance, and to see whether they can get it produced at considerably less cost?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have particulars about it and I will make the necessary inquiries.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I say that I was a member of the Medical Research Council and that the difficulty is not money but men—research experts? As for the point raised by hon. Members opposite, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the Medical Research Council know all about H.11?

Mr. Morrison: I am prepared to consider representations from both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

European Volunteer Mineworkers

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Labour if any plans are under consideration whereby the coal-needy European nations should arrange to supply the labour force necessary to dig coal from British mines under British technicians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir, apart from any proposals received from the Italian Government to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power referred in his reply on 6th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport). Arrangements have, however, been in operation for some time for the recruitment of Poles and European Volunteer Workers for the coal-mines, and some 6,500 have so far entered the industry or are in training. The intention is to continue these schemes to provide the maximum number which the industry is prepared to absorb.

Sir W. Darling: Does not the Minister think that here is a chance of much-needed international co-operation, and would he consider putting these views before the International. Union of Mineworkers so that the raising of coal throughout the world would become a matter of international consideration?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The National Union of Mineworkers have already agreed to the importation of 30,000 from the Continent, and it is on that scheme that we are at present working.

Mr. Osborne: Of the 6,500, how many are in training and how many are already working in the mines?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think the vast majority are in work. A very small minority are in training.

Photography (Vocational Training Scheme)

Wing Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour why ex-servicemen and women studying a course of photography under the vocational training scheme at the L.C.C. School of Photo-Engraving and Lithography, who have at their own expense, and on their own initiative, and with the

acquiescence of his Department, taken the Intermediate examination of the Institute of British Photographers in order to improve their professional standing, have been informed by his Department that their training cannot continue if they are successful; and whether he will reverse this decision.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Training under the vocational training scheme is provided only to the extent necessary to enable trainees to obtain suitable employment. I am advised that the Intermediate Examination of the Institute of British Photographers is recognised as a standard qualification for employment as a photographer. Accordingly, training under the vocational training scheme is terminated when the trainees have passed that examination and steps are taken to place them in suitable employment.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the ex-Service men students concerned were given a written promise that they should have a full two years' course and that many of them were promised jobs afterwards on the strength of completing the course, which was the qualification required by employers? Will the Minister consider reversing this highhanded action on the part of his officials, which is really a breach of faith with the ex-Service men concerned?

Mr. Isaacs: I should not agree about high-handed action and a breach of faith until I have seen the written instruction to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but I will have it looked up. However, if these men have now reached a status in the industry entitling them to take up employment in it, it is useless to continue their training.

Sir David Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter in my hand from one of my constituents who has a two-year grant from his Department? Only one year has elapsed. This student hopes to pass his intermediate examination. What is he to do with the other year's grant?

Mr. Isaacs: I have not the slightest knowledge what the hon. Gentleman has in his hand, but if he will let me have a look at it I shall be able to examine it.

Wing-Commander Robinson: Is the Minister aware that I placed all the facts in front of his Parliamentary Secretary


so that he should have them before him in order to answer my Question?

Mr. Isaacs: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will agree that he sent them to the Parliamentary Secretary on the 18th, that they reached the office at 2 o'clock on the 19th and that I have not yet had an opportunity of looking at them.

Wamen's Hostel, Cheltenham

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship caused to 22 girls employed in Cheltenham and district by the announcement on nth November that his Department's hostel at The Garth, Eldorado Road, Cheltenham, was to be closed on 22nd November; and as it is not possible for them in the short time available to obtain acceptable alternative accommodation, if he will postpone the closing of the hostel to the date originally announced, 30th January.

Mr. Isaacs: My inquiries are not yet complete and I will write the hon. Member.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these girls will not be asked to leave the hostel at the end of this week? They have to go somewhere.

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give an assurance but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept from me that I will do whatever I can to prevent this hardship occurring.

Nursing and Maternity Homes (Staffing)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the shortage of hospital accommodation in this country, he will do everything possible to assist private registered nursing and maternity homes to obtain nursing and domestic staff.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but I should point out that in October last my Department had particulars of over 32,000 vacancies for nurses and over 6,500 vacancies for domestics, most of which were in hospitals.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister realise that nursing and domestic staff are much more economically used in a large institution like a hospital than in a series of small nursing homes?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. That is why we are at the moment concentrating on getting all the available staff we can into institutions

Mr. House: Is the Minister aware that if our health services were based on natural methods for the prevention and cure of disease instead of on the administration of poisonous medicines drugs and injections our present hospital accommodation would already be 10 times greater than is necessary?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: How does the Minister reconcile the reply he has just given indicating his preference for the larger hospitals with the assurance in his first reply that he is doing everything possible to assist private registered nursing and maternity homes?

Mr. Isaacs: That is easily reconciled. Under the operations of the Ministry of Labour, which have been somewhat criticised during the last 24 hours, we are endeavouring to get people into the most suitable employment, and, therefore, if there should be an opportunity for a private institution to take somebody in a locality where there is no vacancy in a national institution, we shall endeavour to get people in there.

Directed Workers (Appeals)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made for the consideration of appeals by persons refused permission by his officers, under S.R. & O. 1947, No. 2021, to take up employment desired by them.

Mr. Isaacs: Full consideration is given to the desire of an applicant to take up any particular job which is in fact available for him, if it is in essential work. Further, every applicant is afforded a considerable range of choice of jobs, and has a right of appeal against direction to any particular job. In my view this affords adequate protection to the worker.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that in a case where his officer refuses a man permission to take up a job the man wants to take up, there is no appeal whatever from the officer's decision?

Mr. Isaacs: I have pointed out that there is a right of appeal against direction to any particular job. That right of appeal is not a statutory right, but an


administrative right which we extend without question to everybody wishing to make use of it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the refusal of permission to do work which a man wants to do is a matter of great importance to that man? Surely, it is quite wrong that that permission should be refused without any possibility of an appeal?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands the answers I am giving. If that man refuses to take a job, he is directed. After being directed, he gets the right of appeal.

Mr. Maclay: To whom has the appeal to be made?

Mr. Isaacs: To the local appeal board which is composed of representatives of employers and workers, with an independent chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-WEST REGIONAL BOARD (CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the statement by Mr. George Gibson, Chairman of the Northwest Regional Board, on 6th October, about the defendants in a recent prosecution in connection with the use of electricity was made with his approval.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): No, Sir.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that this gentleman said that in any country where justice was justice and not just a stupid argument, these people would have been shot? Does he not feel that a representative of the Government in the capacity he holds in the North-West district ought to be more responsible than he appears to be from such remarks?

Mr. Marquand: I have already said that the statement was not made with the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand that it was made after a Press conference and not during one.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION TARGETS (TRADE UNIONS)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consult with Trade Unions to obtain their help in accepting specific production targets, with a view to fixing firm delivery dates for export orders and in trade treaties.

Mr. Marquand: Trade unions are already associated with many of the discussions between the Production Departments and the trade organisations concerned on production and export targets. Production Departments will progressively expand this practice.

Mr. Parkin: Bearing in mind the great difficulty in negotiating bi-lateral agreements, will the hon. Gentleman impress on the Chancellor the need to extend this practice as widely, thoroughly and fundamentally as possible, because the only people who can improve on the estimates of manufacturers are the workmen who are going to do the job and they must be consulted at every stage?

Mr. Marquand: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need to impress this on my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the trade union movement has always given the fullest co-operation whenever it has been asked by the Government?

Mr. Marquand: I am extremely sorry, but I could not hear what the hon. Member said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sterling Balances (Belgium)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the £52,700,000 converted by Belgium in the period 1st January to 20th August, 1947, how much was by way of Belgian purchase of old sterling balances from other countries; and how much by way of old sterling balances in the hands of Belgian citizens.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): It is impossible to relate the amount of sterling currently converted to the level of old sterling balances either in the hands of Belgian citizens or acquired by them from other countries. Of the sterling converted by


Belgium between 1st January and 20th August, 1947, part accrued from current transactions with the sterling area and part from current transactions between Belgium and other countries. During the period 1st January to 31st August, 1947, Belgian sterling liabilities fell by £1.6 million.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does that mean that to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman cannot ascertain this, certain Belgian financiers—mainly friendly Belgian financiers—taking advantage of the special terms of the financial agreement between their country and ours, bought up substantial sterling balances held in countries that had no such agreement, thereby equipping themselves the better to reduce our dollar balance?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be unwise of my hon. Friend to assume anything of the kind. It would be better and, I think, right of him to assume what I have said in reply to his Question.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Under the terms of the agreement, have not the Treasury the right and duty of checking each demand for conversions of sterling to dollars, in order to satisfy themselves that in fact these dollars are being used for the purposes of the original loan?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the House will remember, these agreements on transferable accounts were come to, and to a certain extent we did rely, and do rely, on the country concerned, and to that extent, of course, they were not checked.

Capital Investment (White Paper)

Mr. Challen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will issue the White Paper giving detailed information on the cuts which are to be made in capital expenditure in connection with the economic crisis.

Mr. Marquand: The White Paper on Capital Investment will be published in the very near future, but I cannot at the moment give the exact date.

Postwar Credits (Estate Duty)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why repayment of postwar credits of deceased persons with estates of over £100 cannot be made without an Estate Duty officer's certificate that duty has been paid, or is

not payable; whether there has been any alteration in the size of estates subject to Estate Duty since this regulation was introduced; and whether he will now amend the regulation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This requirement will be dispensed with in future, as rights to postwar credits of a deceased person which are transferred to beneficiaries are not chargeable to Estate Duty as part of his estate.

Mr. Sharp: Can my hon. Friend say whether that dispensation operates forthwith?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.

TEXTILE IMPORTS, COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Sir Waldron Smithcrs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Government have issued a request to the Commonwealth and the Colonies to cut down the import of textiles; and what percentage was suggested of the 1936 figures.

Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of any such specific request having been made.

Sir W. Smithers: What is meant by "specific"? Will the hon. Gentleman explain "specific"? Has no request been made at all?

Mr. Marquand: What I meant by "specific" is that no request of this kind has been made by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to any of the Commonwealth Governments.

AGRICULTURE (PRIORITY SUPPLIES)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what respects top priority has been given to agriculture.

Mr. Marquand: Various forms of special priority are given in the provision of labour and in housing and in addition every effort is made to meet as far as possible the demands for fuel and power for agricultural production. As regards supplies of steel for the manufacture of agricultural machinery, perhaps the hon. Member would await the general statement


on the revised steel priority system which I shall, with permission, be making after Questions today.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As it appears from the answer that, in fact, no top priority is given to agriculture, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement broadcast by the Lord President of the Council on 28th August, that food growing is a top priority is grossly inaccurate, and that that broadcast should be counted as one of the Socialist party broadcasts?

Mr. Marquand: I am an earnest student of my right hon. Friend's pronouncements, but I am not aware that he did broadcast on 28th August.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are still 23,000 agricultural workers in the Armed Forces, and are they not still required in agriculture?

Mr. Baker White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 21st August the Lord President of the Council told farmers that the Government would insist on high priority for agriculture from all Departments, and that the instructions had been issued accordingly to the Departments concerned?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, there is no reason to dispute that. The hon. Member used the words "high priority" and I have said "special priority."

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that as far as housing in rural Scotland is concerned, the whole thing has closed down completely?

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers have been under the impression that there has been high priority ever since August when the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of Agriculture made statements?

Mr. Marquand: I repeat that there is a special priority.

DEMONSTRATION, WESTMINSTER

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the highly organised Communist demonstration lasting for several hours immediately outside the Palace of

Westminster on 22nd October, the police are empowered to take the names and addresses of such persons with a view to inquiring into their occupations and activities; whether the police took such action on this occasion; and whether he will give an assurance that this will be done in similar circumstances in the future.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries and has been informed that on the occasion in question the police in attendance had no cause to take names and addresses, since in their view no breach of the Sessional Orders of this House, or of the law, was being committed.

Mr. Donner: As the majority of these people were young men of working age, would it not be prudent to inquire into their activities?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 24th November—Second Reading of the National Assistance Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday, 25th November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday, 26th November—Committee and remaining stages of the Ceylon Independence Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill; and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Further progress will be made with the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill.
Thursday, 27th November, and Friday, 28th November—Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill and Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he proposes to find the time to set down a Motion in the terms of the Motion standing in


the name of myself and several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen which, as he will see, is signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

[That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Local Government Bill that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills and to report Part II thereof to the House forthwith without Amendment.]

Mr. Scollan: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I say that I wanted to raise this particular point? I gave notice in the House yesterday, as hon. Members will read at column 1232 of HANSARD. I gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I wanted to put down a Motion on the lines that the Bill be divided into two parts. Yesterday, I put in a Motion in my own name, but imagine my astonishment when I discovered this morning that the Motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—a different Motion—and my name is tagged on to it. Immediately after the incident took place in the House, when I went outside I was tackled by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who informed me that if the Motion was going down, it would have to be in his name because he was a Privy Councillor. I informed him then that no Motion of mine was going down with his name. After I had written the Motion I immediately brought it in here, and two hon. Members on this side of the House decided to support it. But today we find that the Motion is not on the Order Paper at all, and that there is one in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and our names are tagged on to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: May I say that I raised the matter the day before, that I raised it during my speech, that I also moved that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and that on the Division the hon. Member in question voted against the Bill being remitted to a Committee of the whole House, thereby possibly precluding himself from his chance of speaking on it if it were referred to a Joint Committee. Thereafter, I gave him notice outside that I intended to put down a Motion of this kind—

Mr. Scollan: That is not the case.

Hon. Members: Order.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is my recollection of the conversation—[Interruption.]. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I thereupon, in conjunction with my hon. and right hon. Friends, drafted the Motion, and I think that the Table will bear me out, that my Motion was in immediately before any other.

Mr. Speaker: This appears to be a little complicated. Of course, it does not much matter. If one says in the House, "I am going to put it in," that does not necessarily mean that it gets in first. It has got to get in first to the Table. I have inquired, and there is no question but that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion was first in to the Table and, therefore, it is entitled to priority and to be put down first. Knowing nothing about the little feeling which apparently was roused between the two sides, I understand that the Motion put in by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) was really not in Order. Therefore, the Table altered it in order to assist the hon. Member, and it was not known that it would be inconvenient for all the names to appear together. I understand that it was altered because it was not in Order.

Mr. Scollan: I must say that I have always found very great help from the Clerks at the Table at any time when I have had to go to them; but on this occasion I asked specifically because I was in some doubt whether I had worded the Motion correctly or not. I asked, "Is that correct?" I asked a second time and I was told, "Mr. Speaker will decide whether or not it is correct." With that help, I understood that it was acceptable. Had I been told that it was not, I would have altered the Motion accordingly. I do not think that it is quite fair that my name should be tagged on like this.

Mr. Speaker: It appears there was some mistake. I confess I had never heard of it. In fact, all this morning I was attending another function and, therefore, did no business myself.

Mr. Scollan: I hope that there were no mistakes there.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the misunderstanding which seems to have occurred. When we know


whether or not the matter is to be debated, I dare say that we can rectify the misunderstanding.

Mr. Eden: If an Englishman dare interrupt in the matter, may I try to help, not at all on the merits of the Scottish dispute but on the merits of the Motion on the Order Paper? May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has had a chance to consider the Motion and does he not think it is quite clear?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Scottish Labour Members are completely unanimous in this request? We are in favour of the general request made in this Motion. On the other hand, we do not wish to have our names, through any of our representatives, associated with the Motion in these circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Petty.

Mr. MacMillan: The matter is extremely difficult as far as Scottish issues are concerned, and, therefore, we wish to be dissociated from it. I would ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, against what, on the surface of it, appears to be a very gross breach of the ordinary principles of this House. To any person reading this without the explanation given today, it looks extremely unfair and rather unworthy' of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: I went so far as to say that I regretted what had happened. I apologised and said that I would try to put matters right.

Mr. H. Morrison: On the main issue, the more I listen to this, the more I am quite clear that it had better be discussed through the usual channels.

Sir Arnold Gridley: Having regard to the fact that the Report of the Committee that went into the operation of the Members' Fund has now been at the service of hon. Members for many weeks, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government are prepared to find time at an early date to consider the recommendations in that Report, having regard to the possibility that there may be some of our old colleagues who are now receiving assistance and who need the extra assistance which is one of the recommendations of that Report.

Mr. Morrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been some delay, but I am most anxious that it should be dealt with expeditiously, and I will do my best to see if this cannot be taken before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May I ask the Lord President whether in view of the fact that the verdict in the case Rex v. Caunt suggests that the regulation may be totally inadequate, he can hold out any prospect of early amending legislation?

Mr. Morrison: That was a very recent decision of the Courts, and I do not know whether there may be an appeal. I do not think I ought to say anything when it is such a recent decision of the Court, and when I cannot be sure whether there may not be an appeal.

Hon. Members: There cannot be.

Mr. Eden: He was acquitted.

Mr. Morrison: Then, there cannot be; that is quite right. Obviously, there cannot be an appeal against the decision. But it is quite recent and I do not think that I should make a statement. If any statement is to be made it should be made either by the Home Secretary or one of the Law Officers.

Mr. S. Silverman: Since the question now raised is the subject matter of Question 86, which was not reached, would it be in order for the Home Secretary to answer that Question now?

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I could not hear what the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said; otherwise, I would have stopped him putting his question, because it was quite out of Order on Business.

STEEL SUPPLIES (SELECTIVE PRIORITIES)

Mr. Marquand: With the permission of the House, I agree to make a statement. Early in 1947, a special priority was given to the requirements of programmes which contribute to the expansion of fuel and power resources. This involved the grant of special priority symbols for the whole of the approved steel requirements for those programmes. The programmes in question absorb a large proportion of all steel available. It is now necessary to assure supplies of steel, as far as is possible, for programmes


which contribute to exports or (like agriculture) to the saving of imports. To add the whole of these large programmes to the existing priority programmes would create, a position in which the priority element in steel would exceed the non-priority element, with the result that the priority label would tend to become meaningless.
The machinery for the allocation of steel is now under review, with the object of ensuring that deliveries of steel more closely match the allocations. It will thus become possible gradually to reduce bulk priority authorisations without detriment to the carrying out of the programmes concerned. It has been decided to introduce concurrently a strictly limited system of selective priorities, by means of which Departments responsible for the existing priority programmes or for export or import saving programmes will be able to authorise the use of the priority symbol to a very limited extent and in specific cases where essential production might be held up for lack of particular quantities or qualities of steel. I must emphasise that as soon as this scheme is in operation priority in supply of steel will apply only to orders duly authorised on a form which bears the initials P.M.L.

Mr. Eden: I hope the Minister will realise that the statement which he has just made, in so far as it is intelligible, is a very disturbing one, in respect, particularly, of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman has just said, if I understood him rightly—and he was good enough to furnish me with a copy of his statement—that it is now necessary to ensure supplies of steel to various industries, including agriculture. He went on to say that the machinery for the allocation of steel is now under review, yet, last August, the Lord President of the Council, speaking to the farmers, told them that he would insist upon "a high priority for your requirements from all Departments." How in the world is it possible to relate these two statements?

Mr. Marquand: One of the principles that was in mind in devising this new scheme, which is a scheme for gradually paring down the quantity of priority now allowed to the fuel and power programes and the like, is that we might introduce priority for agriculture and the export programme with a reasonable possibility of these priorities really being enforced.

If we were simply to add a whole lot more to the list, if we were to add agriculture, we might get great applause from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, if we added a large bulk to the existing bulk, we would tend, in fact, to defeat the purpose which we are trying to fulfil. I do assure the right hon. Gentleman—and I admit that this is a difficult matter to explain—that the revised system has been devised very definitely with the object of enabling the export programme and the production of agricultural machinery and similar things to get priorities that will mean something.

Mr. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, last August, the Lord President of the Council, a Member of the Cabinet, told the farmers that they would have priority? Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and says that he will try to devise means by which agriculture may find priority. In all the stories of this Government's failures to provide the right allocations, this is the worst I have ever heard.

Mr. Marquand: I am sorry that this could not be considered in a more reasonable frame of mind. This is an attempt to devise a priority system that will work, which is a desire that is shared on both sides of the House, and it is really fantastic to suggest that the Government which introduced the Agriculture Bill recently passed through this House, have no real interest in agriculture.

Mr. Eden: I am very sorry, but I must press this further. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Lord President of the Council said last August that agriculture would have full priority, and that last August is now a long time ago? Does he not realise that now, in November, he is saying that the Government are reviewing these matters to discover how they are to give the priority to agriculture which they promised last August?

Mr. Marquand: I am confident that we have discovered how. May I try to bring this matter back into a reasonable atmosphere? May I acknowledge with gratitude the help which I have received in devising this scheme from the Committee of which I was appointed chairman, and on which the Iron and Steel Federation, the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress were all represented?


May I say that I was advised by them not simply to add priorities to the list, but to work out a scheme whereby the existing priorities might be tapered off and new priorities take their places, and that is precisely what the Government have done.

Mr. Eden: What in the world, then, did the Lord President of the Council mean last August when he told farmers that agriculture would have high priority?

Mr. Marquand: I am repeatedly asked what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said, but I thought that hon. Members might be interested to know how this scheme is to work. However, I am sure that the Lord President, when he said what he did say, meant what he said.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister whether his statement means that these selected priorities will take the place of the P.M.L. priorities when granted, and that, until such selective priorities are granted, the P.M.L. priorities will take precedence over everything else?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. The new priorities will carry the initials P.M.L., and every P.M.L. priority will be equal in priority with any other priority.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In order to make this perfectly clear, will the right hon. Gentleman make available to hon. Members the exact figures of the allocation of steel to the agricultural industry in August, and the exact allocation contemplated under the new arrangements which have just been announced?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is under some misunderstanding. The allocation is a different question; we give priority in order to secure the fulfilment of the allocation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have had wide experience in foreign affairs, do not always appreciate that it has never been the practice to disclose allocations, and I do not propose to disclose them now.

Mr. Medland: Will the Paymaster-General inform the House how much this re-orientation of allocations—for that is what it means—will affect the allocation of steel to the war damaged areas for their rebuilding.

Mr. Marquand: I am not at all concerned this afternoon with allocation. I must simply say that that is another question altogether.

Mr. Baker White: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he say what the Minister of Agriculture meant on 4th September when he said that arrangements were being made to increase the supply of steel?

Mr. Marquand: Obviously, the supply of machinery is increasing. Figures have been published, and everybody knows that the output of agricultural machinery is enormously greater than it was.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that it is now 20th November?

Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend say when these increased supplies of steel will be made available for agricultural machinery firms, because I received information this morning from a large firm which is having to sack men owing to lack of supplies; and will he also say whether there will be any difference in priority allocations as between different types and as between agricultural machinery, and, say, electrical generating plant?

Mr. Marquand: The granting of priority in respect of any order for agricultural equipment will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am trying to describe here the overall system whereby priorities can be made effective. It is for my right hon. Friend to grant the priority for particular orders, and that question should be addressed to him.

Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say how much the fuel and power priority programme will be delayed by the interposition of the new priorities which he has tried to describe to us?

Mr. Marquand: If the hon. Gentleman will study my answer tomorrow, when he has an opportunity to read it, I honestly believe that he will be satisfied that no one will be further delayed by the introduction of this new system.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish in HANSARD a fist of all the priorities, from top to bottom, setting against each one the different steel users who fall into that category?

Mr. Marquand: The point of a scheme like this is not to have bulk priority. Its whole purpose is that we shall get away from that sort of thing, so that people will know that a priority applies to a particular order.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the Minister appreciate that his priority system is worked out so that a farmer is unable to take delivery of a commercial steel-framed glasshouse which is ready for delivery because the appropriate department is unable to assure the restoration of the steel to the manufacturer within a year, and does he think that that is priority? Is he also aware that farmers do not consider that they are getting any priority at all?

Mr. Marquand: The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and I am prepared to say that with all the risk that it entails. Hon. Members really must wait until the scheme comes into force.

Mr. Eden: Does not the Minister realise that the Lord President promised the pudding three months ago?

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Paymaster-General give an assurance that when he speaks of agriculture he means

British agriculture, and that, when steel is allocated to industries manufacturing agricultural implements, the implements eventually made will be allocated to British agriculture and not sent for export?

Mr. Marquand: Some will be sent for export and some will be kept at home.

Sir W. Darling: Following the question of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), would the Minister, for the guidance of the commercial classes, consider setting forth what are the respective standards of the priorities? I have seen all kinds of priorities—top priority, high priority, P.M.L. priority, first priority, deferred priority, and selective priority. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what they mean, and will he publish a definition?

Mr. Marquand: I think that is a noble contribution, surprising though it may seem. I would repeat the last sentence of my last statement, and I must emphasise that, as soon as the scheme is in operation, priority will apply only to orders which are duly authorised, and bear the initials P.M.L.

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to amend the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland; to make further provision for the improvement and development of agriculture and the use of agricultural land in Scotland; to authorise the making of grants towards the provision of houses and buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands; to extend the time for making applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Woodburn; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. On page 637 of the Order Paper, notice is given of the presentation of a Bill by Mr. Secretary Westwood.

Mr. Speaker: To what is the hon. Member referring? I did not hear him very well.

Dr. Morgan: I am referring, Sir, to the first Bill at the commencement of Public Business to be moved by Mr. Secretary Westwood. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether that is a mistake?

Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Woodburn, and not Mr. Westwood.

Dr. Morgan: It is on the Order Paper as Mr. Westwood.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but not on my Order Paper.

Dr. Morgan: Am I to understand from that, Sir, that two sets of Order Papers are issued, one for you and one for Members?

Mr. Speaker: It was not printed on mine; it was written on mine.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19th November, 1947.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation for furtherperiods of certain Defence Regulations.)

3.58 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out paragraph (c).

Clause 1 is described in the marginal note as having for its object the
Continuation for further periods of certain Defence Regulations.

In the body of the Clause itself, there are various periods set for the continuation of the Regulations referred to. Paragraph (c), which my Amendment is designed to remove from the Bill, says that the Defence Regulations and parts of Defence Regulations specified in Part III of the First Schedule shall, unless previously revoked, continue in force until 10th December, 1950, and shall then expire. That means that the Regulations affected by Paragraph (c) are to continue in force if the Bill is not amended until 10th December, 1950.

The general principle involved in my Amendment is the undesirability of prolonging in time of peace Defence Regulations which owe their justification to the emergency of war. Putting it as briefly as I can, the general argument is that these Regulations are unsuited to a free democracy at peace. They do not have the tone and temper of a community living freely and not at war. Apart from their general unsuitability to a free and progressive peaceful society, the diffusion of these Regulations throughout a great number of documents, Bills, books of regulations and papers, which are not collated, results, as I have previously said to the House, in uncertainty as to the law. I conceive that to be a very bad thing for any community which tries to nurture citizens who are at once free and of their own accord law-abiding, because no one can keep the law


if it is made difficult or impossible for him to find out what it is.

I know that in every individual instance of a regulation being extended, a case can be made out for it on its own merit, and the case is arguable, but at least some sort of case can be made out for continuing practically every regulation. The general point of this Amendment is that one can argue for this and that regulation being continued, yet the mass effect of this accumulation of continued regulations in peace time has an oppressive effect upon the conduct of society, and it is in the mass result, the accumulated result, of this continuance of these regulations that the real evil exists. The regulations themselves are uncodified, they are unascertainable, and they are mixed up with the grant of vague and great powers to the executive which only war itself can excuse.

The proposition which is embodied in this Amendment, and those consequential to it, is that every year Parliament should have the opportunity of reviewing the Defence Regulations which circumstances make it seem advisable to the Government to continue. That was the spirit of the Bill that we passed last year, the 1946 Act as it now is, bearing a similar Title to this Bill, and that is the reason why we have this Bill before us in this Committee. But I do suggest that it is a departure from sound practice to include in a Bill bearing the same name, not only the prolongation of certain selected regulations, but further provisions that will enable regulations touched by paragraph (c) to continue undiscussed up to the end of 1950. I conceive that not to be a departure for the better. I conceive it to be a whittling down of Parliamentary control over these regulations. If the Government want regulations continued, and can make a case for them in this changing transitional period in which we are at the moment, then let the Government make their case, but let it be our practice automatically every 12 months to review in the light of those then existing circumstances the regulations which have been continued, and say whether they should be continued or not.

I am aware, from the Second Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the reason why the date 10th December, 1950, appears in the Bill is that that was the date which was put in the Supplies and Services (Transitional

Powers) Act. I remember the discussion on that Bill. The Opposition then protested against this remote deferment of the date when the regulations expired, and our view has not changed. We still think that they should come up every year. Lastly, in Clause 7 of this Bill, the Government are seeking for power to extend the Defence Regulations by Order in Council, in pursuance of an Address from both Houses. That is to say, that in any case in which the automatic expiration of a continued defence regulation might seem to the Government to be against the public interest, they have the power, under Clause 7, to come to the House and ask for it to be continued for another year.

We shall have certain things to say about Clause 7 when we come to it, but assuming it to be in the Bill, it deprives the Government of any excuse for extending a regulation for more than 12 months, because if that power remains, although we do not like it, it does give an opportunity for debate on the Address asking for the continuance of the regulation—for the merits of each particular regulation to be considered, even if it is late at night, and even if we cannot amend it. We object to the proposal in this Bill to continue Defence Regulations until 1950 without giving Parliament any effective opportunity to discuss them, and we think it would have been better to adhere to the system whereby these regulations, if continued, would come up automatically every 12 months for the consideration of this House.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), in moving it, has sought to show that the regulations included in Part III of the First Schedule, which under the Bill may continue until 10th December, 1950, are unsuited to a free democracy at peace, and that under the system of continuing them which is proposed by the Bill, Parliament is deprived of the proper means of reviewing them. I would like to deal with the second point first. As hon. Members are aware, all the regulations mentioned in this Bill were under discussion in 1946 at the time of the Bill which bore


the same title, and at that time they were all open, not only to revocation or continuation, but Amendment, and a good many Amendments were made. I think those hon. Members who were concerned will agree that my right hon. Friend was extremely conciliatory and went a long way towards meeting the legitimate objections to these regulations, and made Amendments to them. At that time all the regulations underwent the full scrutiny of Parliament. Now, 18 months later, we have them again included in this Bill, and they are before us again for the full scrutiny of Parliament.
This is essentially a Bill dealing with practical administration, a Bill the object of which is to continue regulations, all of which were in force during the war, for varying periods during which they are necessary, and no longer. In such a Measure, it does seem reasonable at this stage, two years after the end of the war, to consider which of them cannot be dispensed with at the end of the third year. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that all these regulations should automatically come up for review every year. I appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite take a view different from that taken on this side of the House about the necessity for not wasting time in this House, but if the case is, as we hope to be able to show, that these regulations in Part III of the Schedule could not possibly be dispensed with within a year, or that there is no reasonable probability that they can be dispensed with within a year, then I think it is unpractical and unreasonable to ask that they should nevertheless be considered three times. This is already the second time.
I do not think I need deal in any detail with the choice of the date 10th December, 1950. That was fully dealt with on Second Reading. The proposition, as hon. Members know, is that if, as we say, it is the case that these regulations cannot be finally dealt with in one one form or another by the end of 1948, then it is reasonable to postpone the whole review of Regulations both under this Measure, and the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, until 1950. I think that proposition is very reasonable.
As to the second criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, that these regulations

are unsuited to a free democracy at peace, that is a very short way of dismissing this long list of extremely diverse regulations. It is perfectly true that they all came into existence during the war and on account of war conditions, but I submit that it is not true that all of them are suited only to war conditions.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would like to make sure that the hon. Gentleman, whose argument I am following very closely, appreciates the point I was trying to make. It was directed not against the particular regulations in this Bill, because we are coming to deal with them later, but rather to the general argument that regulations enacted in an emergency for the purpose of war should not, unless cause be shown, individually be continued in peace time in a free democracy.

Mr. Younger: I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I hardly think that that can be entirely divorced from the merits of the regulations. One has to consider what the regulations are, and I was just coming to the point he was making. I cannot quote his exact words, but I think he suggested that these regulations give very large powers to the Executive. I appreciate that he may legitimately put forward that argument as regards one or two of them—and it really is only a question of one or two of them, and not even of the majority. There are a great many which give no additional powers to the Executive, and as to which this question of the powers of the Executive does not arise at all. There are, indeed, many more which are purely practical provisions to deal with the temporary conditions arising out of the war. I do not want to quote many, but perhaps I might mention one or two examples of those regulations. There are some relating to the National Registration Act and to identity cards. That includes Regulation 20AB and Regulation 45A. The first of those, I believe, we may be discussing in detail later on its merits.
The point I wish to make is that those are not in any way oppressive, but are merely convenient administrative measures necessary so long as the National Registration Act has to continue and so long as identity cards are necessary. In other words, they are useful so long as it is necessary to have any rationing schemes at all, and it is not only rationing but other matters, such as the electoral


register, which depend upon these regulations. There cannot be any possible argument on the ground of human liberty. The seaman wants his rations, and he has to have an identity card in order to get them. It is for that sort of purpose that these regulations are required.
There are others—Regulations 32A and 32AA—dealing with various establishments for the custody of persons of unsound mind and mental defectives. Those regulations are required because during the war people had to be moved from the regular named places where they were normally detained, and, for a number of reasons, including bombing, it has not been possible to take them back to those places, I am advised that if these regulations were to expire, there are many mental defectives in this country now living in premises to which they were transferred, who could not legally be detained. That is a matter which, I believe, will come up at a later time, but I use it as an illustration. There is Regulation 33 which facilitates the provision of midwives. We all know that there is a shortage of most types of trained people in this country owing to lack of training during the war. There is a shortage, among other things, of mid-wives. There is a great demand for them because, as we are all glad to know, the birthrate is rising. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there can be anything objectionable in this regulation or, indeed, that it gives any increased powers to the Executive? Such a regulation must be continued because there is no prospect of the need for it coming to an end at the end of 1948.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is necessary from the point of view of constitutional principle that we should revoke such a regulation? Does he not think that this is a practical Measure, that we should put these regulations all together in a Schedule, entering a date not so long ahead, and certainly a date when most of us believe our economic difficulties are likely to be continuing, at any rate in some degree, and that we should then be prepared to come here and defend them individually if necessary? The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be keen on attacking them individually. When one has regard to what these regulations are, and to the length of time for which it is almost certain

they will be needed, one cannot really attack the proposition that they should be continued until the date specified. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment and to include this part of the Clause which governs the third part of the First Schedule.

4.15 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I am not impressed by the Under-Secretary's reply. He said that a number of these regulations which have been put in Part III of the First Schedule are so placed because the Government have decided that they cannot possibly be revoked within a year. Does that mean that because they have been put in Part III to continue until the end of 1950, the Government are quite certain that they will be required until the end of 1950? Are the Government quite certain that there will be no need to revoke them before that date? Whatever view the Government may have taken, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) that Parliament should have power to review them before the end of that time. The Government have taken all Private Members' time, and it looks as if they will continue to do so. Therefore, there is very little opportunity for Members of the Opposition, or indeed of Members on the Government back benches, to call in question the continuance of these regulations. Once they are put in Part III and this Bill becomes law, Parliament will have no further opportunity of discussing them until the end of 1950, and then only if the Government propose to continue them under the provisions of Clause 7. Therefore, I feel that the Government's reply is most unsatisfactory.
The Under-Secretary said that many of these regulations give no power to the Executive. I cannot accept that suggestion. If they do not give power to the Executive I cannot see what purpose they fulfil, because if the Executive do not need the power, they can perfectly well do the job by purely administrative action. They will not require any legislative authority. I think, perhaps, the Under-Secretary did not exactly mean that. In many cases these regulations are used to over-ride some statutory provision. At this stage after the war, to use a regulation to over-ride provisions


of permanent statutes, is constitutionally objectionable. Therefore, I consider that this Amendment should be supported.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I wish to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I can appreciate the point that some of these regulations may be necessary in time of peace, but it clearly cannot be the case that all the regulations in this Schedule, necessary though they may be in time of war, are necessary in peacetime. If they are, a separate case should be made for their continuance in time of peace.
Let me refer to Regulation 12, which is to be continued under this Schedule, and the point which the hon. Baronet has just made with regard to over-riding statutes. That regulation deals with access to certain premises and prohibited areas for the purpose of public defence. In time of war one can understand that a regulation of that kind is essential, because there are certain places which ought to be prohibited places and on which no authorised persons ought to be allowed to enter. Clearly, that is a special purpose, and a special order is necessary because of the special conditions of war, but ordinary precautions are taken in time of peace. On account of war conditions precautions were taken which could not be taken in time of peace. Peacetime precautions were not adequate in time of war. Three-fore, this special regulation is introduced, and special provision is introduced dealing with the Official Secrets Acts. The Official Secrets Acts were made to apply, by virtue of the regulation, in a way in which they would not apply otherwise. That was a special provision for war. What is the case today? The application of the Official Secrets Acts to those conditions is only made lawful because this regulation is continued under the provisions of this Bill.
Consider any of the regulations made under the Act. Consider Regulation 84, which states:
No person who obtains any information by virtue of these Regulations shall, otherwise than in connection with the execution of these Regulations or of an order, rule or byelaw made under these Regulations, disclose that information except with permission granted by or on behalf of, a Minister of the Crown.
That merely extends the power of the Executive and of Ministers of the Crown.

There are adequate powers to deal with that in ordinary peace time. This is a special power applicable to war, and to war conditions alone. There can be no reason for continuing this regulation, much less for continuing it until 1950—no case whatsoever. Therefore, instead of all these very varied regulations being lumped into the Schedule, they should be examined separately and on their merits at this stage; and only those should be continued that are necessary in peace time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I cannot quite follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). He says that all these regulations ought not to be lumped into the Schedule, but each ought to be considered individually, on its merits. I see nothing to prevent the Committee from doing so. The Schedule is before us. Each one of them can be considered on its merits, and if anybody thinks that any one should not be continued beyond the end of this year, all he has to do is to put down an Amendment to take it out of the Schedule. I am entirely in agreement with the view that the Committee would be failing in its duty in accepting the Schedule as a whole. It is the duty of each one of us to look at the regulations put into the Schedule, and to exercise his own personal and individual judgment as to whether any of the regulations, and if so, which, ought to be continued.
I cannot see what that has to do with the Amendment. If it were passed we should have no opportunity of considering any of these regulations on their merits. The effect of passing this Amendment would be to do precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) think we ought not to do—to take the whole lot out, lock, stock and barrel, without any opportunity of considering them on their individual merits. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman really wishes his argument to be effective, he ought to oppose this Amendment and then give the strictest possible analysis to the Schedule when we reach it—or, if he is wise, before we reach it, so that he can put down any Amendments that he thinks justified. The way to avoid doing that,


the way to deal with the regulations holus bolus all in a lot, is to pass the Amendment and to leave out the regulations without any analysis, or examination or criticism of any kind.
It really is a quite irresponsible way of doing things. I am certain that nobody believes that the whole of the regulations in Part III of the First Schedule of this Bill ought to come to an end at the end of this year. I doubt if there is a Member of the Committee who has looked at all of them, who would commit himself now to saying, "I have seen them all, and I am quite certain they ought all to come to an end at the end of next month." But that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be saying. Then he said, "Let us look at each of them, one by one."

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is trying to take his fences before he reaches them. I gather from what he said that he quite agreed that it was inadvisable that all these regulations should remain in being up to 10th December, 1950.

Mr. S. Silverman: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Member will make his position clear; but I understood him to say that he was in agreement that that was not desirable.

Mr. Silverman: May I make it clear? I did my best before, and I shall do my best again, to make it plain. I said I was not in favour of leaving all of them in the Schedule unexamined, and that each one ought to be examined in turn. When we come to examining each one in turn, I may decide to reject the lot, or I may decide to keep the lot, or I may decide to keep some and reject others. What I decline to do is to do what the Amendment suggests—reject the lot unexamined.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I say again that I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to take the fences before he reaches them. The point of the Amendment is, surely, this: that instead of pinning down the Committee to the continuance of these regulations to the 10th December, 1950, we should have the opportunity of re-examining the regulations at intervals.

Mr. Silverman: We should not have any opportunity to do that.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member had better wait to see what happens in the event of the Amendments being carried.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not going to give way again. I am trying to make myself clear, and I hope that the hon. Member will listen to what I have to say. Let us assume that other hon. Members share the feeling of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and would like to examine this Schedule in detail. Why do they want to examine it in detail? Because they are in doubt whether all the regulations contained in the Schedule should, in fact, be continued at all beyond the fixed period. That is precisely the object of this Amendment—to see that Parliament is protected from making the mistake of keeping a regulation alive longer than it is really necessary for the community—longer than Parliament ought to allow it to remain alive, if it is getting in the way of the normal life of the people.
I am only a back bencher in the House of Commons, and I have always understood that, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne sits as near the Government Front Bench as he can, he is also, technically, a back bencher. I have also understood—and I have been a Member of the House of Commons for 14 years—that the prime function of the back benchers is to protect the people from the exercise of functions unfairly by the Executive. Sometimes the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne appears to forget that part of the duty. Still, let him remember it today. I am speaking as a back bench Member who is trying to protect the people from over-exercise of power on the part of the Executive, and I think I am quite justified in doing so.
I really must refer to the argument that was used by the Under-Secretary of State. He was rather selective in the regulations to which he referred. Did he not add to the evidence in favour of our Amendment when he quoted, for instance, the regulation regarding identity cards for seamen? Of course, nobody says that at the present moment it is unnecessary for seamen to have identity cards. The reason why it is necessary for seamen to have identity cards at the moment is, that seamen have to get particular advantages by


way of drawing clothing cards and additional food. Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the Committee that right up to 10th December, 1950, it is absolutely certain that seamen will need special identity cards for these purposes? It is a grim picture.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I was very careful on every occasion I used the words "absolutely certain" to add the words "or very probable." I did not maintain that it is absolutely certain. I should like to make it clear that there is, of course, every intention of revoking any of these regulations at an earlier date if it is possible to do so.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is all very well. The Parliamentary Secretary has put it quite charmingly, saying, "Of course, we should like to take them off as soon as we possibly can, but I will not guarantee that they will be absolutely essential." It is all very well to rely on the charming manner and good intentions of Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench, but I would far sooner rely on the judgment of Parliament itself. I do not want to rely on the judgment of the Executive, and I do not think I am fairly protecting the people of this country from the false exercise of power by the Executive unless I make absolutely certain that Parliament retains the right to re-examine this power. That is exactly the point. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health seems to be getting excited about this—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Bored, not excited.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman may be bored, but he is making his presence felt by means of all sorts of gestures. How excited he would have been had he been sitting on this side of the Committee when we were considering this. He would have been standing in just about the position I occupy, holding forth at very great length, moving the Adjournment, and all sorts of things. We all know that perfectly well. But let him forget himself for just one moment; let him come into the Lobby with us, just for once, on this issue, and re-assert the rights of the people in Parliament. It

is a very reasonable Amendment. Candidly, I think it may contain the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne—I do not admit that it does, but it may do—but let us deal with it from the practical point of view. Let us deal with this Amendment only, and then consider with anything which arises out of it when it comes along.

Mr. Charles Williams: I regret that I have not heard the whole Debate on this Amendment, but it seems exceedingly simple to me. If this Amendment is accepted, we shall save the Government a lot of trouble, and that is always a good thing, because it means that Part III of the Schedule will not have to be discussed in detail. That is one excellent reason for accepting this Amendment. As I understand it, we shall then cut out of the Bill the words "until nineteen hundred and fifty," which will ensure these various regulations coming before the Committee next year. That, in itself, has many advantages, for it will enable the Home Secretary to say in 12 months' time that some of them will not be wanted again. We should also have the advantage of knowing that on this part of the Bill we are not voting blind for a series of regulations which it would be difficult for the Committee to consider one by one.
Having listened to what the Home Secretary said the other day on this matter, and having, with great care, provided myself with a copy of his speech, I appreciate that he was well meaning, but it would have been much better to cut out the whole question of 1950 and kept the number of regulations to a very much lower figure. For the simple reason that I object to giving power to carry on these regulations for three years, I say the best thing is to cut the whole lot out and have them up again next year, when we need pass only those which are necessary. No one can say whether they will be of any value then or not, and from the speech which the Home Secretary made the other day it appears that he went through these regulations in some way—I would not like to suggest which way—that certain of them were given varying periods, and that this particular batch—which is also mentioned in Part III of the Schedule—was given three years. For the sake of clarifying the Bill, for the sake of helping things on tonight,


and for the sake of not over-burdening the country with unnecessary regulations, I ask the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment. It can only help him in the long run, and it will certainly give a great deal of pleasure to a large number of back benchers before the evening is out.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in accordance with what is becoming his more or less usual custom, has used his ingenuity to read into this Amendment a meaning quite different from that which the Amendment really has. I would, of course, agree with him when he says that if the Amendment is carried it will not mean we shall be able to discuss and consider each of the Defence Regulations in Part III.

Mr. S. Silverman: Any of them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Or any of them, I quite agree. It would then be for the Home Secretary to carry on any Defence Regulation if he wanted to do so, as I apprehend, by an Address under Clause 7, or by moving some later Amendment. The real point of this Amendment is not the avoiding of careful scrutiny, for we shall have that at some time even if the Amendment is not carried. The point is, not to avoid scrutiny of particular Defence Regulations, but to provide opportunity for this Committee to consider Defence Regulations at yearly periods. As the Bill now stands, what happens? We can have our scrutiny during Committee today, but from today until 1950 there will be no further opportunity in this Committee of considering the propriety of continuing a Defence Regulation. I think the Home Secretary will agree it is the case that, once we have parted with the Defence Regulations which are affected by paragraph (c), after the Bill is passed the Committee will have lost the opportunity of expressing a view on the continuation, or revocation, or otherwise of a Defence Regulation until 1950.

The Parliamentary Secretary has said, "Of course, saying that it will continue until 1950 does not mean that we, in the exercise of our discretion, cannot revoke it before that time." I concede that that is so, but that is quite a different thing from saying that this Committee shall "have an opportunity of saying—as it would have with an Address—that these Defence Regulations should not be continued. Under Clause 7—and I think I should be in Order in referring to it for a moment—there is power to extend Defence Regulations from year to year if the occasion warrants it. That will give the Committee an opportunity of considering particular Defence Regulations. On this Amendment I do not intend to discuss the details of any Defence Regulation; we shall have an opportunity of doing that afterwards, and I shall not follow the Parliamentary Secretary's example by giving illustrations, I am not complaining of what he did; I am merely trying to save time.

This Amendment raises the question of principle that this Committee should not part with Defence Regulations subject to the condition that they shall remain in force until 1950. This Committee should insist on having these Defence Regulations brought before it from year to year if it is the intention of the Government that they should continue in force. In the absence of any satisfactory assurance from the Government that we shall have an opportunity of securing before 1950, the revocation of Regulations which we do not think serve any further useful purpose—and under this Bill it does not appear that any such opportunity will be available—we on this side of the Committee have no alternative but to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 125.

Division No. 29.]
AYES.
[4.40 p.m.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Benson, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bacon, Miss A.
Berry, H.


Alpass, J. H.
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barstow, P. G.
Bing, G. H. C.


Attewell, H. C.
Barton, C.
Blackburn, A. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Battley, J. R.
Blyton, W. R.


Awbery, S S.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.


Ayles. W. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)




Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Reeves, J.


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham. N.)
Robens, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jay, D. P. T.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Royle, C.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sargood, R.


Carmichael, James
Jones, D T. (Hartlepool)
Scollan, T.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Keenan, W
Segal, Dr. S.


Chater, D.
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, C. W.
Sharp, Granville


Cluse, W. S.
King, E. M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Collins, V. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shurmer, P.


Colman, Miss G. M
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Cook, T. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Leonard, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Corlett, Dr. J
Leslie, J. R.
Skeffington-Lodge, T C.


Crawley, A.
Lever, N. H.
Skinnard, F. W.


Crossman, R. H. S
Levy, B. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Daggar, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Daines, P.
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mack, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
McKinlay, A. S
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, H. J
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Diamond, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dobbie, W
Martin, J. H.
Swingler, S.


Dodds, N. N.
Medland, H. M.
Sylvester, G. O


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Symonds, A L.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ewart, R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Farthing, W. J
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E
Thurtle, Ernest


Fernyhough, E
Moyle, A.
Tiffany, S.


Follick, M.
Murray, J. D.
Tolley, L.


Foot, M. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Turner-Samuels, M


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Viant, S. P.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Gilzean, A.
O'Brien, T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oliver, G. H
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Goodrich, H. E.
Orbach, M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywodd)
Paget, R. T.
Wigg, George


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilcock, Group-Cap. C. A. B


Grierson, E.
Palmer, A. M. F
Wilkes, L


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parker, J
Wilkins, W. A


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Parkin, B. T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Guy, W. H.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Perrins, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Piratin, P.
Willis, E.


Hardy, F A.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.
Woodburn, A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Woods, G. S.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wyatt, W.


Hicks, G.
Price, M. Philips
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Holman, P
Proctor, W. T
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


House, G
Pryde, D. J



Hoy, J
Pursey, Cmdr. H
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E
Mr. Pearson and


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Ranger, J.
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Byers, Frank
Digby, S W.


Baldwin, A E
Carson, E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D


Barlow, Sir J.
Challen, C.
Donner, P. W


Baxter, A. B.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Drayson, G. B.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Drewe, C.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Cooper-Key, E. M
Eccles, D. M.


Bowen, R.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bower, N.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Erroll, F. J


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Butsher, H. W.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.







Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Gates, Maj. E. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ross, Sir R. O. (Londonderry)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Glyn, Sir R
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Scott, Lord W.


Grant, Lady
Marlowe, A. A. H
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Gridley, Sir A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Smithers, Sir W.


Grimston, R. V.
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mellor, Sir J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Molson, A. H. E.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Studholme, H. G.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hollis, M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Hurd, A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Touche, G. C.


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Nutting, Anthony
Walker-Smith, D.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Keeling, E. H.
Osborne, C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pickthorn, K
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Linstead, H. N.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.



Lucas, Major Sir J.
Rayner, Brig. R
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Commander Agnew and


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Lieut-Colonel Thorp.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 8 to 14.
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment to the First Schedule, in page 10, to leave out lines 34 to 43. The question here is whether or not Defence Regulation 16 shall continue in force, as amended by this Measure. Defence Regulation 16, in its original form, gave wide powers to Government Departments to close highways and footpaths. When the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, 1945, was before the House on Second Reading the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said of this regulation:
It has been agreed between the Departments that no fresh order for the closing of a road will be made without the concurrence of the Minister of War Transport, and so far as it can be foreseen, the power will only be required in two special types of cases: (1) in order to facilitate opencast coal workings, it may be necessary to break up a footpath and then to open it up again to the public when the coal has been extracted from the land over which the footpath runs, and (2) it may be necessary to close a fresh stretch of road "near an existing closed road in order that the existing closed road may be re-opened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 242.]
In the same Debate, the Home Secretary expanded his observations about this, and indicated that Defence Regulation 16 would be used only for those two cases, opencast coal workings and the temporary closing of a road where there

is a Government dump nearby. Now we find that a third category is being introduced, that is, the closing of a footpath or any highway at the whim of the Minister of Fuel and Power for the erection of an electricity generating station.
In the Second Reading Debate on this Measure, I indicated that I thought it was wrong that the Minister of Fuel and Power should have this power, and not the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Bearing in mind the justification for Defence Regulation 16 under the original Measure, I am wondering how the right hon. Gentleman will justify its retention now, having regard to the fact that the House has recently passed the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under that Act power has been given to the Minister of Transport to authorise the stopping up or diversion of a highway, when and if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, to enable development to be carried out in accordance with the permission granted in Part III of the Act.
I should have thought that all the powers the Minister of Fuel and Power required with regard to highways and footpaths could be exercised under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, if the consent of the Minister of Transport could be secured. Indeed, I suspect that the reason the Committee is now being troubled with this Defence Regulation is because one part of the


Government does not know what another part of the Government has put in one of its Bills. Having regard to the terms of Section 49 of that Act, it is quite unnecessary for the Minister of Fuel to seek to obtain this extra power, when there is a power under an Act of Parliament—subject to the satisfaction of the Minister of Transport, and subject to its fitting in with the plan of the Town and Country Planning Act—to stop up highways. On that ground I suggest that this regulation is really not necessary.
I contend that it is a bad practice to give Ministers power to close highways, just to suit their particular projects, without the matter being related to town and country planning. Here, as I pointed out, instead of narrowing the operation of the Defence Regulation, because it was narrowed by agreement under the last Measure—as stated in the passage I have quoted—it has been extended a little, because now the Minister of Fuel and Power, if this Defence Regulation obtains, will have the power to close highways for the purpose of erecting an electricity generating station. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should have that power, just because it suits him, and, in addition, have the over-riding power possessed by a Minister. If we are to have a town and country plan in this country which will be effective and efficient, diversions must have regard to that plan. Only chaos will result if we have Ministers using rights under Defence Regulations which conflict with the plan which has been approved. In those circumstances, there is little need for these additional powers, and if any highway does require to be stopped, ample powers at the moment exist for stopping it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. and learned Member has said about this Amendment, and I do not think he quite appreciates the effect that his Amendment would have. It would, in fact, restore Defence Regulation 16 until 10th December, 1950, in its original form, because, although there are two Amendments on the Paper, there is not one to leave it out of Part III of the Schedule.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would immediately agree as to that effect, but the operation of Defence Regulation 16 would,

presumably, remain in existence also until 1950.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that would be the effect. It could not be. I dealt at some length with this regulation on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have all along been very anxious to ensure that any stopping up of a highway—and a highway includes a footpath—should be very limited, and undertaken only in cases of extreme urgency. One of the difficulties which confronts us at the moment is the problem of securing adequate generating plants in the country. That is the reason we have put this power into the regulation. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this power will be exercised in consultation with the other Departments concerned. If we rely on the machinery operated by other Government Departments, it is not possible, on occasions, to move in this matter with the speed that is desired. Quite frankly, I prefer the old fashioned way of dealing with the diversion or closing of a highway—going to quarter sessions. As a Vice President of the Commons, Open Spaces, and Footpaths Preservation Society, I regret that other means have, in recent years, been effected by which it is possible, outside the regulations, to get a footpath closed in a way that does not give nearly as much facility as quarter sessions' procedure.
5.0 p.m.
We have put this into the Bill on the grounds that it is an emergency, a transitional, Measure. I hope the Committee will feel that the very limited use to which we propose to apply these powers in future is one which the circumstances of our time can justify. We do not ask for it on any other ground from that. Fuel and generating capacity are two of the most essential things we must have in dealing with emergency conditions, and I hope we shall be given these powers. I decided to have the exact powers put into the Bill so that there should be no doubt about them, but if there is any feeling that the Ministry of Town Planning ought to know about these matters, I am sure the Ministry of Fuel and Power will consult them. Sometimes, however, in the erection of a generating station, it is necessary to close or divert a highway, and to go through the ordinary procedure when considerable speed is required would cause undue delay.

Mr. C. Williams: The Minister has undoubtedly put his case with moderation. I quite agree that there may be occasions when great speed is needed in these matters, and none of us wish to hold him up on that point, but in some ways there is an extension of powers here. More power is given in regard to what is required for opencast mining and the generation of electricity.
I noticed that while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he was being carefully watched by the Minister of Health. In a short time the Minister of Health may want to do something of this sort for the purpose of obtaining slate or stone for building houses in an emergency. The right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly casting his kindly Welsh eye on the Home Secretary, as if saying, "Here is an opportunity to get new powers in a comparatively short time." The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Health might wish to use these powers for what he considered was a good purpose. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is a powerful personality, and I do not want to see these powers further extended on another occasion. Some Members might have been taken in by the kindliness and sweet reasonableness of the Home Secretary, but once this kind of thing is put into a Bill to meet special need, it is not long before other Ministries ask for those special powers. The Home Secretary, who proclaimed the good work he has done for the preservation of commons, open spaces and footpaths, should think twice before rejecting our Amendment. I warn him that others might use this stick to beat him—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman seems to be repeating himself.

Mr. Williams: I certainly will not repeat that; I do not think I have used the word "stick" before. In any case, I have just come to the end of my speech.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation of this Defence Regulation. May I assure him that, in moving this Amendment, I did not seek in any way to challenge the proposition that there might be occasions when it was necessary to stop up highways,

both for opencast coal operations and the building of generating stations? I appreciate that that may have to be done, but I hope it will be done in a very few cases. The Minister referred to quarter sessions' procedure, with which I am familiar. This can be carried out quickly, although I agree that at times there are difficulties. Apart from that, however, there is a new procedure in the Town and Country Planning Act, under Section 49. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about that procedure, although part of my argument was that there are very ample powers for the speedy closing of highways under that Act. If I am wrong then it is a criticism of that Act, and an implied criticism of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
But I am not making that criticism. I suggest that the argument of speed can be somewhat over-exaggerated. In building an electricity generating station, a plan has first to be prepared. When that has been done, it will be known what highways or footpaths will be interfered with and surely, after that, it is a simple matter to operate under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and get an order made to close the highway. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at this point, to see whether it will be possible to operate speedily under the Town and Country Planning Act, as I believe it will. If he will do that, then we will withdraw this Amendment, and have a short discussion, perhaps, on the Report stage.

Mr. Ede: I am always anxious to meet the Opposition when they approach a subject in the way in which it has been approached by the hon. and learned Member opposite. I have looked carefully into this matter, but I will examine it again in the light of what has been said. My own experience of working under old Town Planning Acts has been that they were very slow in their operation. I always regarded the power to close a footpath under a town planning scheme as dangerous from the point of view of the people who were interested in the footpath, because it was so easy to obscure the footpath by a dozen or so different colours on the map. I will look into the matter again, and communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman before the Report stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, I have great pleasure in asking leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Permanent enactment of certain Defence Regulations.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that the Amendment in page 2, line 19, to leave out Clause 2 has not been selected, Mr. Beaumont?

The Deputy-Chairman: It can be debated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Clause raises a question of principle in legislation. It is, as the Committee is aware, a Clause providing that certain regulations specified in the Second Schedule shall become part of the permanent law of the land. On this Clause I do not want to say anything about the specific merits of these regulations which the Clause is designed to perpetuate, because there are Amendments down to certain of them. The point I desire to submit to the Committee is that, whether it is right or wrong for these regulations to become part of the permanent law of the land, this is a clumsy and inefficient way of perpetuating them.
All citizens are presumed to know the law and are liable to get into trouble if they do not. If citizens are to understand the law of this country, they have to know where to find it, and, ordinarily speaking, any person trying to discover the law on a particular subject will look at the Acts dealing with that subject in general. If the variety of regulations which this Bill continues become part of the law of the land in this particular way, it will become increasingly difficult, because of their variety, for any citizen interested in one particular branch of the law to follow it up. If we look at the Second Schedule, we see that the wide variety of subjects covered by the regulations contained in it include such an agreeable mixture as the appointment of special constables, the exercise of powers by provost marshals, evidence under the Naval

Discipline Act, the carriage of explosives, the enforcement of affiliation and maintenance orders and the variation of such orders. Surely, it is putting a wholly unnecessary strain upon those who have to administer the law, or try to find out the law, if legislation on that wide variety of subjects is found tucked away in an Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act.
This is a slipshod method and one that causes unnecessary trouble to everyone concerned. It would not be trying the Government very highly, if they desired the continuation of these regulations, to see that they were incorporated in the Bills dealing with these specific subjects. For instance, matters concerning affiliation and maintenance could well be attached to the Criminal Justice Bill which is to come before this House. Most of the other matters could go into the Army and Navy Act or into the Naval Discipline Act. They would then be under the right subject matter where citizens could find them, and not be lumped together in a Bill, the title of which gives no clue whatever, either to the layman or lawyer, to the subject matters contained therein. I am, therefore arguing, not that these provisions should not be continued, but that they are being continued in an inconvenient and clumsy way.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I think that I can deal very shortly with this point. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not anxious to dispute the fact that, possibly with a few Amendments, the provisions in the Second Schedule may reasonably be made the permanent law of the land. His complaint is of the method employed. In considering this matter, I think that we ought to leave out the layman. I do not think there is any validity in the argument that the method used here makes it more difficult for the layman, and that if other methods were used, it would be simpler for him. I think that whether we have a tiny subsidiary Bill or make these miscellaneous provisions in this Bill, in either case the layman would be completely baffled, as he is in dealing with any Act in which there is a whole series of legislative references
I suggest that if there is any problem, it is for the lawyer, but I think that it is no more difficult for a practising


lawyer to look at the provisions in this Measure than it would be to look up series of Acts. Supposing that I were to admit that there was something in the hon. Gentleman's point, and that it would be slightly better to put every new provision into a new Bill under a suitable heading, I think that in the circumstances with which we are dealing it would be quite unreasonable to do so. There are in this Second Schedule, I think, some eight different paragraphs. The hon. Gentleman may remember that last year certain provisions were made permanent in the 1946 Act. There were about ten of them, which means that there have been some 18 altogether. Presumably, the suggestion is that there should be 18 separate Bills.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No.

Mr. Younger: If the proposal is not that there should be separate provision for all these matters, I am not sure that I have understood what the hon. Gentleman intends us to do.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I suggested that in respect of several of these regulations it would be perfectly possible to arrange for them to be included, not in separate Bills, but in certain Measures which are now coming before this House. Certainly, one of them could go into the Army Act, which, under the constitution, the House will have to discuss.

Mr. Younger: I am advised that the hon. Gentleman is not right about that. He also mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill, and we are advised that the particular provision to which he refers could not suitably be included in that Bill. The provisions relating to the Armed Forces cover all the Armed Forces, or, in one case, they cover the Navy, and, therefore, it would be no use to attempt to include them separately in these particular Acts. One provision relates to the making of a general order by all three Services, which would require three separate Measures if we were to deal with it under the provisions of the different Service Acts, instead of by a single provision in the present Schedule, which permits of general orders being made by all three Services. I think that the miscellaneous nature of the provisions in the Second Schedule, to which the hon. Gentleman seems to object, is really in their favour. If there were a specific list of paragraphs all relating to the same subject which

could be put conveniently into a single code, or which we could divide up into groups of, say, three, there might be an argument for putting them into the third part of the First Schedule, so that, in the meantime, we could bring forward legislation. The mere fact that they are, on the whole, trivial and uncontroversial, and that they are highly miscellaneous, seems to be a strong argument for getting them enacted at the earliest possible moment and not waiting until a variety of Bills have been brought forward.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Under-Secretary of State has treated this matter a little on the light side, because there is far more in the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) than he seemed to imagine. He dismissed airily the position of laymen by saying that it did not matter for they would have to go to lawyers anyway, but I would remind the Committee and the hon. Gentleman that there are lawyers and lawyers. It is true that in the Temple or Lincolns Inn there were, at any rate until the Germans bombed those seats of learning, vast libraries containing up-to-date information on every one of the multifarious orders issued by this Government. In those circumstances one could consult a competent practitioner, certainly one who was a specialist in the branch of law involved, and who could be trusted to give a moderately correct answer to any question that the bothered laymen put to him.
However, one has to consider that that is not the way in which the law is actually administered in this country. It is not on the specialists that the advising of the laity depends. In most cases there are country solicitors up and down the land whose access to volumes of references is limited. They have to be guided by commonsense and by a knowledge of the legal principles which they apply to the problems put before them. When law and commonsense were more or less in alignment, that method worked pretty well on the whole, but now that the parallelism between law and commonsense ceases to be accurate, owing to the amount of legislation pouring forth, it is impossible to give correct advice unless one has these up-to-date sets of reference books.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in considering this matter will not treat


it quite so lightly. It is the duty of the Government which enacts the law to strive to the utmost to place that law in an intelligible form before the people who are expected to obey it. Every time they fail in that, they are neglecting their duty, which is not only to make laws but to make laws understood by the people. It is only by that method that we get a law abiding people, because they then understand the law and respect it. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that this matter was of very little importance and disposed of it very quickly. There has been a remarkable change in the attitude of the Home Office in the last 12 months to the subject matter of this Clause. When the Act of 1946 was before the House the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for likeston (Mr. Oliver) said these words on the subject which has just been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
A certain number of the Regulations in the First Schedule have proved to be so useful that Parliament will probably be asked before long to agree to their being permanently placed on the Statute Book—for instance, Regulation 57C about the conveyance of explosives by road, Regulation 42CA about gaming parties, Regulation 40AA about the employment of Service police in military and other stations, and various amendments of procedure affected by the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulation.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say, expressing the view of the Government 12 months ago:
The Regulations in this category, however, are not being made permanent at the moment, because they make substantial changes in the law or are not suitable in their present form for permanent retention, and Parliament is right to expect that any changes which are to be made permanent will be done by the introduction of special legislation, and not by incorporation in a miscellaneous Bill like that now before us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 242.]
That was the view at that time. What has occurred in the meantime to invalidate the argument of the then Under-Secretary? Parliament, he said, had a right to expect that these matters would be dealt with by permanent legislation and not in a miscellaneous collection of heterogeneous pieces of legislation such as we have before us. Parliament was right 12 months ago, and it is right today in saying what should be done about the regulations being made permanent. I do not dissent in broad terms from the description of these regulations given

by the Under-Secretary of State. I think that time has proved them to be on the whole useful, or, at least, innocuous provisions, but these things should not be included in a Bill of this sort. See what the Bill is called. It is to deal with emergency laws. These are not to be classed as for an emergency, unless we are to live in a perpetual state of emergency, which I do not think the Committee desires or intends. Surely the subject matter is not indicated by the word "emergency"?
The Bill is also described as a transitional provisions Bill. How would one get a clue from the Title that important pieces of legislation, which have nothing to do with the emergency and which are far from being transitional, are being made permanent and are contained between the covers of this Bill? The thing is an anomaly and an affront to commonsense. I hope the Government will return to the view they expressed 12 months ago because that was the right view. What suggestion can I make to the Under-Secretary now? I do not wish to see an end to all these on the whole harmless but beneficial provisions, but I ask that they be sorted out as soon as possible and appropriate legislation introduced embodying them, and that as soon as they can be they should be removed from a Bill bearing a completely misleading title. It these provisions have to be revoked, they can be revoked by the powers which the right hon. Gentleman already has. I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the view expressed 12 months ago by the Home Office still holds and that Parliament has the right to insist that legislation is enacted in an intelligible form. As soon as opportunity serves, these important matters, some of them affecting the domestic lives of our people, should be embodied in proper Bills and removed from this transitional provisions Bill.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not complain about the quotation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for likeston (Mr. Oliver) last year. During the intervening period we have been watching legislation in the hope that Bills might be found into which these provisions could be incorporated. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is desirable that the amendments in the regulations


embodied in this Measure are desirable from the point of view of day-to-day administration. It has not been found possible during this Session to introduce Bills into which these regulations could have been appropriately incorporated. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when such Bills are introduced we shall see that the provisions now embodied will be introduced into them and that repeal of this part of the Schedule will be carried out. Some of these Amendments are purely administrative matters and not likely to drive either civilians or lawyers to consult law books.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: What about the affiliation and maintenance provisions?

Mr. Ede: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me just say a word or two, I will come to that point. The first provision, enabling the Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council to appoint special constables in the places that they occupy is obviously desirable. I doubt whether discussion on it taking up a whole Friday would be justified in any Parliament, let alone a Parliament as busy as this. Another provision relates to the exercise of powers by provost-marshals. That is a subject which will not be discussed between civilians and lawyers. It will be discussed between the provost-sergeant and the member of the forces whom he happens to have arrested. It will very largely be carried on in the wet canteen. I have no doubt that the fact will very soon be imbibed there with the refreshment, that it is possible for a rating to be arrested by an Army or Air Force provost-sergeant. On one or two occasions objection will be taken before the officer—affectionately referred to as "the old man "—when the case is heard, that the defendant really did not think he should have been arrested by that particular sergeant; but news travels very quickly in the Services.
With regard to the proof of proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, again, taking a certificate instead of compelling witnesses, at a considerable expense of time and money, to attend to prove mere formalities, is a thing which ought to be done, I suggest. I am told that it is not as easy to get these things done for the Navy as it is for the Army. I had hoped to be able to deal with the explosives

matter in my Department, but no opportunity has occurred. I admit that the paragraph about affiliation and maintenance Orders is rather more important. They do involve the layman, the lay-woman and the lawyer upon occasions. I had hoped to be able to include them in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I am advised that they are outside the scope of that Measure as it is drafted.
I hope that it will be possible for us to meet the general point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I should regret not hearing some of the observations he proposes to offer on some of these matters when we reach them. Of course, if the Clause is left out we should be deprived of that delight. I seriously recommend the Committee that that is a pleasure we should not forgo.

Mr. C. Williams: I did not quite understand that last challenge from the right hon. Gentleman. He seemed to think that if the Clause were left out we should not hear certain things later. I think I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at. As he has compelled me by the force of his speech to get upon my feet, I agree that what he said today is very much like what he said on the Second Reading, that the matters in the Clause are not of a very high standing or of very big constitutional importance. That is not what I object to in the Clause. I do not think it is good to have a sailor arrested by anyone from the Army, but that may very likely be prejudice. After the excuses which the right hon. Gentleman has been making that he has not had time to insert some of these things in Bills, that some of them will not go into the Criminal Justice Bill, and that he has had to lump them altogether in one Clause, I am glad that attention has been called to the matter.
These things may be harmless, but this is not a practice which we ought to agree to without some discussion. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised it. The Government have got into a very bad habit of lumping together a number of small things belonging to different Departments instead of dealing with them properly in appropriate legislation. I do not propose that the Clause should be voted against, but it would not be right for us to pass it without making a declaration about something which many people


in this country dislike, and that is the permanent enforcement of orders which were put on during the war. The excuse for doing so may be good or bad. Any Government can put up an excuse for keeping something on and not doing a job properly. I am glad I have had this oppportunity—and I thank you, Mr. Beaumont, for allowing me to catch your eye—of protesting against this very bad habit of a very bad Government.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Further extension and amendment of enactments relating to ploughing grants.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I intend that my remarks upon this Clause should be helpful. I am very glad to see the Minister of Agriculture present because the Clause gives effect to the ploughing up grant. Subsection (3) says:
Any grant made in respect of the ploughing up of land after the said twenty-first day of August may be made subject to such conditions as to the crop to be sown on the ploughed up land as the appropriate Minister (within the meaning of the said Act) may think fit to impose, and, if any such condition is broken in respect of any land, the amount of the grant paid in respect of the ploughing up of that land shall be recoverable as a debt.
I find that some members of the agricultural community who have studied this matter are troubled by the fear that those words imply that in every case where land is ploughed up and a grant is claimed, a direction as to the crop to be sowed will automatically follow. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable objection in many cases to too much direction about precise crops to be sown. Agriculture is carried on upon very various soils in our country, and is, therefore, almost incapable of generalisation. The man on the spot who has lived on the land is very often in a much better position to know what crop will be best than some more remote official either in the county town or in London. I do not share those qualms. I think the Words in Subsection (3) embody what the Minister said in his statement, namely, that to be eligible for the grant the land should be sown to approved crops or resown with

the approval of the agricultural executive committee to an approved grass mixture. I take it that those rather peremptory words in Subsection (3) do not imply an extension of the power of direction beyond what is intended, but it might be helpful if I mention it so that the right hon. Gentleman may clear away any misconception that exists.
The second point is a general one which has frequently been put. We all hope that as a result of this grant and of the exertions of the farmers and their men, there will be an increase in arable cultivation. The contribution which agriculture can make to our economic and financial position is immense, and it is the duty of all concerned in the industry, both governmentally and otherwise, to do everything they can to encourage the ploughing up effort. I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as a whole—his colleagues are involved as much as if not more than he is—that the real difficulty that arises in implementing this policy is the lack of ploughshares and other pieces of farm equipment. It is very serious. I get complaints from all over the country. I grant that the season is a little unusual because the hard ground we have recently had owing to the drought has worn out and broken a lot of the implements which would have lasted longer under normal conditions. The general position is that whereas in earlier years agriculture relied on the horse, and in more remote times on the ox, for tractive power, now it relies more and more upon machinery. In those days the agricultural departments took care to cherish the breeding of horses. They saw that the prime mover of agricultural operations was kept in good supply. There were all sorts of schemes for encouraging horse breeding—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but he is now going extremely wide. The Clause under discussion only refers to ploughing grants. We cannot have a wide Debate on agriculture on this Clause.

Mr. Morrison: I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Beaumont. All I was intending to say was that to give effect to Subsection (3) it will be necessary for the equipment which is required to be provided and for all concerned to be given the tools of their trade.

545 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: This Clause is essential. There is a very big job to be done in the ploughing up of land, but something more than that is required. The ploughing up of land is necessary because of the neglect of agriculture by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and his friends, and the fact that so much of it went out of cultivation. That is something they cannot dispute. They neglected to provide the material when they had the opportunity. It is not only essential to plough up the land; if we are to get the fullest value out of agriculture, a measure of co-operation must be developed throughout the country. In order to ensure that the best and most desirable crops are obtained, it surely should remain the power of the Minister of Agriculture and those who are working under his direction to make certain that in each area, particularly where new land is being ploughed up, the land should not be left to the chance judgment of a farmer, but that the farmer should get advice, or instructions if need be, to grow a crop—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be straying in fields of debate which are not within the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Gallacher: Subsection (3) deals with the crops which the ploughed up land will grow.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Subsection does not apply to grants.

Mr. Gallacher: It concerns the power to withhold a grant if the farmer does not sow the crops he is instructed to grow. It is desirable, if we are to give grants to plough up land neglected by Tory rule, that we should also have the right to direct the character of the crops to be grown there in order to ensure that the people get the very best value in food from the grants that have been given and the service that has been rendered to the farmers. In view of that, this Clause should be retained, because it is absolutely necessary. I think I was right, Mr. Beaumont.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S.

Morrison) said, that some fears have been expressed that Clause 3 (3) could be used by some malignant Minister as a backdoor method of introducing direction. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on that point. This Clause makes no difference whatsoever to the existing position in regard to direction. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, and as I have stated on more than one occasion, I am not using directions to secure the targets for 1948, and I hope it may not be necessary to use directions even later on. Neither is it intended to lay down such conditions for ploughing grants as would amount to directions.
In the announcement I made on 31st August, I stated that the £4 grant would apply where land is sown to an approved crop or resown with the approval of the county executive committee to an approved grass mixture. As far as tillage crops are concerned, I do not intend to pay a ploughing grant for those who sow buckwheat, millet or canary seed since none adds to the food supplies of the country; nor in respect of land cropped in a manner contrary to a direction given for good husbandry purposes to a farmer who happens at any time to be under supervision. Of course we also reserve the right to disapprove anything clearly contrary to the rules of good husbandry, although a farmer not under supervision need not wait for approval of the county executive committee before sowing a crop on land for which he will ultimately apply for the grant. The farmer therefore determines whether or not he is sowing or planting the right crop to collect the grant.
As regards reseeding, we shall not disapprove in such a way as to compel the sowing of a tillage crop, for to do so would be reintroducing direction by the back door, except of course that a grant will not be paid where a tillage direction given by a committee has not been complied with by the farmer. Such direction can be given under Regulation 62 at the moment, but in practice that is not being done, except where a county executive committee considers it necessary because a farmer is falling short of his individual contribution towards our tillage acreage. After Section 95 of the 1947 Act comes into operation, Regulation 62 will be repealed and no more directions can then be given without the assent of Parliament As regards grass mixtures, we might conceivably


publish a list—it is important that farmers should understand it—of standard grass mixtures for varying durations, and the farmer would have no need to get the approval in advance of the Minister if he was prepared to reseed with one of those grass mixtures. Where a farmer wants to depart from any one of the standard mixtures, he ought in advance to seek the approval of the county executive committee. The object of this is to deter fanners from using the cheapest of all inferior grades with an eye on the grant, rather than securing really good pasture. It will be clear that we have no intention of making a detailed examination of cropping proposals, but where cropping or reseeding is not properly done, it is quite right and proper that we should have the right to recover any grant we have made.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy in coming here, and explaining this Clause. It might have been helpful to some of us if the Committee could have developed the matter a little further, but of course I will not follow the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his criticisms. I accept the Minister's last remark that if the Government are to give the £2 an acre they must have certain controls over the land, as far as that is reasonable. I do not see how one can expect a Government to expend public money without any control over what that money is expended upon. The Minister was pleading for better grass seed, and I entirely agree. The better the grass seed that can be grown the better it will be for all. The average farmer does not sow bad grass seed if he can help it; he is not a fool; but the difficulty is in getting good grass seed. When the Minister lays it down that good grass seed should be used, he should realise that it cannot be obtained in some areas. There is a shortage of many things. I hope the Minister realises that very close consideration should be given by his Department and especially—as he has quite rightly gone out of his way to mention the matter of grass seed—to seeing that grass seed of a high standard is likely to be available in the future.
We are being asked to grant £2 per acre of Government money for the ploughing up of land, and I rather gather

that some individuals imagine that the farmer has a very good bargain. But, if we look at the original £1 grant and this new £2 grant, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Clause we are discussing, we find that in prewar days the cost of ploughing up was very much less than it is now, and it is not represented by the difference between £2 and £1. If we look at one item, wayleaves, it is very much nearer £3 than £2. Farmers will plough up their land because it is necessary, but £2 does not really meet the case as an incentive.

Mr. T. Williams: I hate to interrupt the hon. Member, but perhaps he might feel we are being more generous when I tell him that the amount is £4, not £2.

Mr. C. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman would be a little patient I was coming to that. [Interruption.] But £2 is the figure which has been mentioned for a long time, and I was building up my case for the £4. I do not in the least mind interruptions, I have had too long a training for that. If hon. Members will listen to me for a minute, the argument I was going to make is a very simple one. In 1939, £2 was approximately the agricultural wage. Actually it was not quite so much as £2. Two pounds was above the wage in the main, but £4 is below the rate of wages now. So, taking the figure at £4, I still maintain that it is not a real inducement. It is an encouragement, and a help, but the real inducement to the farmer is the knowledge that he is doing something, helped by the labourer, which will be useful in the interests of the nation at the present time.
Looking at the matter from the taxpayers' point of view, we are going to pay this money for producing, but how are we to get the land ploughed at present? It is no good voting a scheme for ploughing up land when there is a shortage of almost everything that the farmer needs, in particular ploughshares. No doubt that shortage is partly due to the hardness of the ground this autumn, and partly to war measures. We are entitled to point out that we are being asked to vote for a Clause when we know that, through Government mismanagement, it is going to be very difficult to carry out what the Clause seeks to do. For a long while I have had many curious political and House of Commons conundrums put to me, but I have never been


able to understand what is the use of passing a Clause which cannot be carried out.

The Deputy-Chairman: I too have a conundrum to solve, and that is just when the hon. Member is going to get out of Order.

Mr. C. Williams: I will do my best to keep in Order, but it has been mentioned repeatedly that we cannot have ploughing up unless we have the implements with which to do it. It is surely not a matter of commonsense to ask for a Clause when we have not the means of carrying it out. If we are going to deal with agriculture, let us have an Agriculture Bill, and do the thing properly. We so often have this sort of hotchpotch of various things and in this case it is agriculture. The Government want to rush things through the House of Commons at times when people are thinking of a variety of other things, and are trying to get them through without hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies having their opportunity. Perhaps some of them will have an opportunity later. The Government are trying to get through a matter which ought to be properly considered as an agricultural Measure. I welcome the Clause in principle. I think that it will do a certain amount of good—

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to inform the hon. Member that any Clause will do more good for the agricultural interests than the Tories ever did. The Tories destroyed agriculture.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Williams: That may be the hon. Member's opinion. I would be only too delighted to debate it with him on another occasion. I would be completely out of Order in doing it now. It is very unkind of the hon. Gentleman to try to tempt me away from the narrow paths of Parliamentary virtue. My last words are that if there was anything damning to this Clause it was what we heard earlier about the complete and hopeless muddle the Government have made of their method of getting the machines for agriculture—

Mr. T. Williams: Order.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says "Order" to me. Apparently he thinks he is both Minister of Agriculture and Chairman of this Committee. That may or may not be so, but

I should have thought that it was not very polite to the Chair. I do not want to be provoked into going on any longer, and I conclude by emphasising the fact that the Clause is acceptable because it puts something in print which ought to be printed, but on the practical side it is nothing like so good as some people imagine it to be.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Further extension of emergency enactments relating to agriculture.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. David Renton: I wish to draw attention to the form of this Clause. Hon. Members will observe that it contains a most remarkable example of legislation by reference. Reference is made to at least four previous Acts, and without consulting them it is impossible to tell what the Clause means. I appreciate the difficulty of the draftsmen in a matter like this, but I suggest that the Explanatory Memorandum of this Bill might very well have summarised the effect of the Clause. That would have made very much easier our task as legislators and would have enabled us to co-operate with the draftsmen in this legislation by reference. To have wording such as there is in this Clause on the Statute Book does not make the Statute Book look any more elegant. It has become a commendable habit in recent times for purely amending legislation to be included in Schedules at the end of a Bill. I suggest that this Clause would have been very much better if it had been included in a Schedule. With those remarks, which I hope hon. Members will consider further with relation to other legislation, I ask the Minister to convey to the Parliamentary draftsmen concerned the suggestion which I have made.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Further extension of certain other emergency enactments.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out "thirty-first," and to insert "tenth."

The Chairman: It might be convenient if that Amendment and the one in page 4,


line 21, to leave out "forty-eight," and to insert "fifty," were discussed together.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The point on the first Amendment is a very small one. It is simply a question of drafting and of convenience. The proposal is to alter the date of expiry from 31st December, to 10th December, simply to bring it into line with the other provisions of the Bill. It is not a point of any great principle. but merely a question of tidiness.
The point on the second Amendment, in one aspect, is considerably more important. I invite the attention of the Committee to the provision in Clause 5 with reference to the date to be named by the Minister of Labour under the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act. Under the Clause as it stands, the final date fixed under this Bill is 1948. Our proposal is to make it 1950. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain the point of substance. Under the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942, provision was made that, during the war, certain practices in industry which tended to restrict production should be put into cold storage for the duration of the war, with the very proper proviso that at the end of the war period they should be restored. They were to be restored at a date to be named by the Minister of Labour by Order, but that date, when allowance is made for the Amendment to the Act of 1946, could not be later than 31st December of this year; that is to say, the freedom of the Minister of Labour to name the expiry of the war period, as the law stands at the moment, is 31st December of this year.
I have no doubt that the extension of that by one year, which the Bill provides, is the result of the negotiations which the Minister of Labour has had with both sides of industry in the National Joint Advisory Council. I apprehend that the date fixed in the Bill is fixed because that was the date recently agreed upon by the National Joint Advisory Council. What is proposed by this Amendment is not necessarily to put the date for the restoration of these practices back to 1950. It is merely to provide that the Minister shall have, as it were, elbow room up to 1950 in which to make the order. The Minister can make the order specifying any date he likes before that date, but he is compelled to

make that order by 31st December, 1948. as the Bill stands.
Surely, it would be a display of ludicrous optimism on the part of any Member of the Committee to believe for one moment that we shall be out of the economic emergency by 31st December of next year. It is obvious that we shall not be in that position. Therefore, it seems to be very short-sighted to leave no option to the Minister of Labour, whatever he may think, to extend the war period for the purposes of this Measure beyond 31st December, 1948. It may well be that the Minister of Labour at that time will have strong opinions. If he has, it will be necessary to come back to Parliament and to provide for an Amendment to this Measure. If, on the other hand, I am being unnecessarily pessimistic and our economic troubles disappear in the next few months like the mists of morning, then the position of the Minister will not be altered if our Amendment is accepted. The Minister will still be free to make the order at any date which, in his judgment, seems right. All we are seeking to do is to extend the period during which his free judgment may operate.
I suggest that the Minister of Labour must appreciate the possibility that 31st December, 1948, may be too early. That is a possibility which no responsible Minister could wholly exclude. All that we seek to do by this Amendment is, as I expressed it a moment ago, to give him more elbow room and to provide that he shall not be compelled to make his order until 31st December, 1950. That is, I think, a point of considerable importance. It is recognised on both sides of the Committee that the suspension of restrictive practices in industry which took place during the war was of very considerable assistance. I do not think it is disputed that it is of great assistance now. All I suggest is that it is unreasonable to assume that that necessity will have ceased to operate by 31st December of next year. It is in those circumstances, and with a desire to be helpful to the Minister of Labour in his difficult task, that I have moved this Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I appreciate very much the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved and the


intention behind it, but I draw the Committee's attention to all the arguments that were used earlier in these discussions for having annual opportunities for discussing the extension of this wartime legislation. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is meeting his hon. Friends coming back. I quite agree that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would not compel my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to terminate the wartime restrictions at any earlier date than is provided for by the agreements with the National Joint Advisory Council. In this matter we have to depend upon a large measure of goodwill. The trade unions were entitled to ask the Minister to terminate that Act at the end of this year, and I think the Committee should keep in mind what is involved in the suspension of the prewar practices. I have examined the huge file of agreements that have been registered with millions of men in the trade unions, who have sacrificed rates of pay with regard to overtime and certain practices and customs in their trades, and have agreed to very substantial relaxations. In general, this Act was a means of assisting this country in the conduct of the war effort.

Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him? If he now has all this information in his Department, how is it that, when this matter was first raised and we asked questions as to what were these restrictive practices, we were always refused the information by the Minister of Labour and also by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid I have no knowledge of that, but I can tell the Committee that agreements that have been registered under this Act relate to the suspension of payments for overtime, dilution, the employment of women instead of men, hours of normal employment and night work, and in all these things very great sacrifices have been borne by the members of the trade unions of this country. They were legally entitled to ask that those practices should be restored at the end of this year, and at the end of last year they came to the conclusion that these practices should be restored. However, in the middle of this year, when there were signs of a crisis, discussions took place which were very largely instigated by the trade unions themselves, and we put it to them that it

was desirable that they should postpone the restoration of their prewar practices, in view of the economic situation of the country. They rightly agreed, and I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will pay a compliment to the trade unionists for their readiness to sacrifice their prewar practices at this time of crisis.
In those discussions we asked them to agree to this machinery for extending the life of this Act, and they agreed to an extension for 12 months. It seems to me that we would be liable to a charge of breach of faith if we extended the Act for three years. I agree that, technically, it does not compel the Minister to terminate the practices, but, when dealing with a subject of this magnitude, which so vitally affects the economic life of this country, and which is an expression of generosity and patriotism by the trade unionists of this country, we ought not to lay ourselves open to a charge of breach of faith. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Committee has listened with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman, and I rise merely to make one or two observations. The first is that I think the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing the wrong hare when he seemed to detect some inconsistency between the line we are following on this matter and the line we have followed upon the regulations. We on this side of the Committee take the view that government by regulation is a power that must be jealously watched and which ought, in our view, to come up for review every year, but there is no government by regulation in this particular Clause of the Bill. It is an Act of Parliament which has been passed, and it cannot be amended except by Act of Parliament. We take the view that an Act of Parliament which has been passed through all its stages in the House is a very different instrument of government from a regulation, and consequently there is no inconsistency whatever in my hon. Friend suggesting that this Act of Parliament should be amended in a different way from that in which the Bill proposes to amend it, because it is an Act of Parliament and not a regulation.
6.15 p.m.
The other thing which I want to make abundantly clear is that the Amendment


does not put off or postpone by a day the restoration of prewar practices, if the time has come for restoration. It ought to be quite clear that that is not the effect or intention. The Amendment was merely put forward with a sincere desire to help the right hon. Gentleman to improve this Measure in a way that would make it a more effective instrument in his hands. I think the view which I have gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that he and his right hon. Friend might be embarrassed if this Amendment were passed, not because it would, in fact, alter the position to the detriment of the trade unions, but because it might be supposed to be a breach of faith. We do not wish to press a party point, or even a point of substance, to the degree of embarrassing the right hon. Gentleman in his task, and, in the circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friends will not wish to insist upon the Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is no part of our wish to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary, or indeed the Minister, in the conduct of these manifestly delicate negotiations, and if the Parliamentary Secretary, in the exercise of his responsibilities, assures the Committee that, however, irrationally, the atmosphere of these negotiations might be poisoned were this Amendment to be accepted, that would be a conclusive argument for not pushing it through. Before asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, I would ask for one assurance. In view of the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, can he give an assurance that, if a situation arises in which, in the considered judgment of the Minister and himself, it is desirable in the national interest to postpone the date, he will not allow the time which is inevitably taken by legislation, or the claims of other competing legislation, to prevent him from pressing strongly for that legislation to be brought forward?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think I can very readily give that assurance, if the National Joint Advisory Council agrees. We might find at the end of 1948 that the life of the Act should be extended, and, if so, we would come to the House and seek the necessary authority. In fact, we must come to the House and get that authority. I can certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of that very clear assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, to leave out "during," and to insert "after."
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and his colleagues for drawing attention to this drafting error in the Bill. The Amendment will correct it, and I thought that, by putting my name at the head, it would indicate that, the Government were prepared to accept it.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Amendment was put down to correct an obvious slip. The right hon. Gentleman has used his powers to put himself at the head of the queue in proposing it. I have no objection to that, and I am only glad that the Opposition has been of assistance by their vigilance in the matter:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of Defence Regulations and enactments by Order in Council in pursuance of an Address of both Houses.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Clause raises a question of general importance on the Bill. As the Committee is aware, the Bill is most carefully designed to put Defence Regulations into different categories so that some of them are eliminated at the end of this year, some at the end of another year, and some at the end of 1950. On the face of it, a very careful discrimination is being exercised as to the duration of a very large quantity of wartime emergency legislation. But Clause 7 destroys that neat pattern and introduces—or, rather, reintroduces—a considerable degree of uncertainty. It provides that where, under this Bill, a regulation would come to an end on a date specified in the Bill, that regulation can, none the less, be continued in force on a Resolution of both Houses requesting the making of an Order in Council. To begin with, that


inevitably raises some doubt in one's mind as to the real intention of the Government to eliminate a great deal of this wartime legislation.
In moving the Second Reading, the Home Secretary certainly gave me the impression that he was sincere in his desire to get rid of as much as was administratively possible of these relics of the war. But the fact remains that power has been retained to keep all the regulations, which would otherwise go out of effect under this Bill, in full force and effect, subject only to resolutions of both Houses. Surely, before this Bill was produced, the Government must have had clear in their own minds which powers they wanted to retain, and for how long? They could not bring this Bill forward on any other basis. Therefore, I am doubtful as to the necessity for introducing this saving Clause under which they can change their minds at the last minute. It indicates an attitude of doubt as to the desirability of finally getting rid of many of these Defence Regulations.
There is a further point. I am perfectly certain that whoever replies for the Government will suggest that there is effective Parliamentary control because of the necessity for the address of both Houses. I am disinclined to be dogmatic on this point, but I should like to be told whether the Address asking His Majesty for an Order in Council to continue a Defence Regulation in force would be able to provide for the incorporation of a request that the regulation be amended for the purpose of its continuation in force. As I read this Clause—I am by no means certain that I am right—the only issue before the House will be whether a certain regulation is to continue in force or not. If that is right, it puts the House in the very undesirable position of either having to accept the whole regulation or to reject it altogether, thereby causing administrative inconvenience. I should be grateful if. I could be informed whether, by any procedural expedient or otherwise, it will be possible, when the issue of continuing a Defence Regulation is discussed under this Clause, to secure amendment to that Regulation, or whether it will be merely a question of taking the whole thing or leaving it.
I am certain that the attitude of the Committee on this question will be determined not only by the reply of the

Government on the point, but also by the indication that they give of their intentions with respect to the use of the power generally to prolong these regulations. It is, of course, quite clear that a large-scale use of this power and the consequent continuation in force of many of these regulations would make nonsense of the whole of this Bill.

Mr. Ede: I think that I shall probably serve the Committee best if I answer straight away the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The regulations will have to be continued in their present form as they emerge from this Bill if an Address is presented asking for their continuance; it will not be possible to include an amendment. I gathered that, on the first Amendment which was discussed today, considerable merit was found in Clause 7 of the Bill. It was suggested that if we would drop out Part I of the Schedule, all we need do is to use Clause 7 between now and Christmas, and that we could continue by that means any or all of the numerous regulations in Part III. I, personally, do not object to all-night sittings, but I think that to look forward, as a preliminary to the Christmas festivities, to moving an Address on each one of these regulations in Part III would be a peculiar form of merriment. Therefore, quite rightly, we did not accept it. I hope that the same practical considerations will be borne in mind by the Committee when they consider exactly what this Clause implies with regard to the future of these regulations.
We have endeavoured to put into the first three parts of the First Schedule the existing Regulations under the previous Act allocated to categories which indicate the time at which we now think we can rely on their being no longer of value. In Part I we have put all those which we think can expire without any detriment on 31st December this year. Of course, we should have power, between the passing of this Bill and the end of the year, to continue some of them by this method of Address if we suddenly found it desirable so to do, but I think we can say that we are so near the event in those cases that that is exceedingly unlikely.
6.30 p.m.
With regard to Parts II and III of the First Schedule, we are endeavouring to exercise the gift of prophecy on remoter


events. My experiences on Epsom Downs indicate to me that prophets whom one employs professionally are apt to be frustrated in their efforts to foretell the future within a very few minutes of the prophecy being made, and I am not claiming the gift of infallibility with regard to prophecy in allocating a regulation to Part II or Part III. I have used my best judgment, after consulting those persons who are responsible for the administration of these various regulations, but to anyone looking at the proposals we are making here, it must be quite clear that towards the end of 1948, or just before 10th December, 1950, it would be a work of physical impossibility almost for the House to pass, and the other place also to pass, Addresses dealing with all the regulations in the respective parts of the First Schedule, but there may be some regulation which it may be desirable to continue a little longer.
I have, for instance, included in Part II of the First Schedule, regulations which it is hoped will be embodied in permanent legislation during the coming year. It may be that such legislation may not be introduced or may not be passed. The House might desire to keep a particular provision on a temporary basis rather than to embody it in permanent legislation, although I think that is unlikely; but if it should be found impossible to produce or pass the legislation concerned, obviously it may be desirable then to have power to extend it one year at a time. The same thing applies, with even more force, to the regulations which are included in Part III. There may be some regulations which it may be desirable, for one reason or another, to continue after 10th December, 1950, and by bringing that date into play, we bring up for consideration together the regulations under this Bill, and the regulations under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. The machinery we propose here is the same as the machinery which the House has already approved in the case of the Regulations made under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act.
I suggest that it would be desirable, when we are considering the two Acts together—the position for which we have designedly worded the Bill—that we should be then using the same machinery

for regulations under these Acts. There is no sinister purpose in this. We could have put the House, and especially the Opposition, to the inconvenience of having to pray against any regulations we propose to continue, but the exercise of piety on the other side of the Committee has assumed such abnormal proportions, that we would not desire that they should have further difficulties in that respect presented to them. No regulation can be smuggled through, any more than I can smuggle through an arrangement for a Sunday cinema to be opened in the smallest urban district in the country. The Address will have to be moved in the House, and it will appear on the Order Paper in time for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to know that the matter is coming up. They will thus have the opportunity of discussing, and if necessary, dividing the House on each separate regulation. I hope the Committee will feel that the Government have endeavoured in this case to use the machinery which is best calculated to bring this matter before the House. The fact that it entails the consideration that I have mentioned is an indication that we do not expect to have to use it to any great extent when the times comes in regard to Part II and Part III of the First Schedule.

Sir J. Mellor: The Home Secretary has confirmed what we anticipated, that these regulations, if continued under this Clause for a further period of a year, would have to be continued in their precise existing form, with no possibility of amendment. I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said in dealing with the serious position that the House would not be entitled to introduce any amendments. I should like, also, to put it from this point of view. I feel that the impossibility of amendment introduces a rather bad form of temptation to the Government, because when the time comes at the end of 1948, or the end of 1950, as the case may be, most probably in changed circumstances and in the light of experience, it may be desirable to introduce some amendments to these regulations, perhaps to leave out some paragraph, or make some addition. At any rate, it is most probable that the existing form of the regulation will no longer be the best form.
The Government will be faced with this alternative: They can take the comparatively simple way of moving an Address in order to secure the continuance of the regulation in the form in which it exists, and so continue those features which may no longer be desirable, or else the Government can introduce a Bill in order to give the substance of the regulation enactment in a form in which it can be revised and, if desirable. Amendments introduced. That would be the choice before the Government. I think that is not a very desirable position because, as I say, the Government would obviously be tempted to choose the former method merely for the sake of Parliamentary convenience. I think it would be most likely that in many cases they would choose that instead of, perhaps, the more troublesome method which would secure the more desirable result.
This is an important matter. These regulations can be continued, and carry on features which are no longer appropriate, merely because of a desire perhaps to save Parliamentary time. If this Amendment is carried, and the Government are deprived of this power of extending for the period of a further year by means of an Address, then they will have to introduce a Bill if they desire the continuance of the substance of the provisions of the regulations, and when the Bill is introduced, not only can hon. Members—

Mr. Tiffany: Could the hon. Member say to which Amendment he is referring?

Sir J. Mellor: I must apologise if I referred to the Amendment. I am speaking on whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. In my submission, if this Clause is not agreed to, then the Government will, if they desire the continuance of the substance of the provisions of the regulations, have to introduce a Bill. That would give hon. Members an opportunity to introduce Amendments and, at the same time, the Government would already have introduced into the Bill any Amendments which they considered appropriate. If they do not introduce a Bill but proceed by the other method, no Amendments whatsoever can be made, however desirable they may be in the light of the circumstances and of experience.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Home Secretary has described to us his occasional

lack of success in forecasting events at Epsom. I am rather surprised that he is not more consistently successful, because in his argument he showed a remarkable aptitude for having it both ways. In my argument on the first Amendment I did not claim that Clause 7 had a merit, but I did claim that the combination in one Bill of Clause 7 and Part III of the First Schedule is, in effect, a double demerit. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that our main objection to the procedure which he is following in this Bill is that by Part III of the First Schedule he is extending certain regulations, not for one year as was done last time, but for three years. Our argument is that all legislation by regulation ought to come up for review annually. Therefore, while we are prepared to extend certain regulations for a year, on cause being shown, we think that review ought to be annual, and we do not like the third part of the First Schedule.
The right hon. Gentleman comes before us, on the one hand, as a kind of Jack the giant killer. It is true that this particular "Jack" postpones the execution of each "giant" for three years; after three years their heads will be chopped off. But, at the same time, he has it another way, because by Clause 7 if at any time he repents of his giant-killing propensities, he invokes Clause 7 and the giant lives for another period of indeterminate duration. We on this side of the Committee do not agree with that position. It is true that the legislative device of an Order in Council has been used from time to time to prolong relatively uncontroversial matters. It is convenient, but its very convenience carries with it objections from a Parliamentary point of view. Those of us with experience of Parliament know that this sort of business is generally conducted very late at night after ordinary business, and that apart from very exceptional circumstances it is never given any pride of place in the Parliamentary programme. Consequently, there is a tendency for this business to be shuffled through, and, as a general rule, it does not get that scrutiny which is accorded to the first or second Order of the Day.
The other great Parliamentary disadvantage is the absence of any power to


amend. Very often that places Parliament in a cruel dilemma. A regulation drafted in war conditions may, on the whole, have a beneficent purpose, but it may be disfigured by some heritage from wartime circumstances, which renders it very undesirable in present conditions. But Parliament, confronted with an Address of this character such as is envisaged by Clause 7, has no choice except either to reject the good with the bad—throw the baby out as well as the bath water—or to swallow the bad points with the good.

Mr. Ede: Swallow the baby and the bath water.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I did not say anything about swallowing the baby. I leave those cannibalistic tendencies to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Surely Parliament ought to be more flexible than that in dealing with these matters in order to correct what is bad, and cherish, keep alive and enact what is good. Indeed, the traditional Parliamentary procedure which We follow in this House has been evolved and designed with that object in view. We first of all discuss the principle. Then we go through the Second Reading, after which we consider the Bill in Committee, cutting out some things and preserving others, and we try to improve our legislation as we go on. We think that any extension of this legislation

by means of Order in Council carries with it the disadvantages to which I have referred, and when one considers that under Clause 7 it applies to a very wide body of miscellaneous regulations we do not think the Clause ought to stand in its present form. The objections from Parliament's point of view outweigh its convenience to the Executive. My hon. Friends and I cannot agree to the Clause.

Mr. Ede: I only intervene to say that I made a slip in the first speech that I made on this Amendment, and I would not like it to go uncorrected on the record. It is impossible to extend any regulation that is in Part I of the First Schedule by an Address at all. Between now and Christmas we have no power to do that. With regard to what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) has said, the issue between us is quite clear. We take one view, which I have endeavoured to express with as much moderation as I can. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends take another view, and I do not think that if I were merely to repeat what I have already said it would advance the matter at all. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which he has stated the point of view of his hon. Friends and himself.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 101.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[16.47 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bramall, E. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Diamond, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dobbie, W


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Burden, T. W.
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Donovan, T.


Attewell, H. C.
Callaghan, James
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Chamberlain, R. A
Durbin, E. F. M.


Awbery, S S.
Champion, A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ayles, W H
Chater, D.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Chetwynd, G. R
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss A
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Baird, J.
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Barstow, P. G.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bartlett, V
Coldrick, W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Barton, C.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Ewart, R.


Battley, J. R.
Cook, T. F.
Farthing, W. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon [...]
Corlett, Dr. J.
Follick, M.


Benson, G
Corvedale, Viscount
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Berry, H
Cove, W. G
Gallacher, W.


Beswick, F
Crawley, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, G
Gibson, C. W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gooch, E. G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Goodrich, H. E.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Deer, G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.




Grierson, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Simmons, C. J.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M.
Skinnard, F. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Gunter, R. J
Moody, A. S.
Snow, J. W.


Guy, W. H.
Morley, R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sparks, J. A.


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Steele, T.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stross, Dr. B.


Herbison, Miss M.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Swingler, S.


Hewitson, Capt M
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Symonds, A. L.


Hicks, G.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Holman, P
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


House, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hoy, J.
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hubbard, T.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tiffany, S.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parkin, B. T
Tolley, L.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Janner, B.
Perrins, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jay, D. P. T.
Piratin, P.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Walker, G. H.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, G. D, (Chislehurst)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wallace, W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Warbey, W. N.


Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Kenyon, C.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Key, C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Randall, H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Leonard, W.
Ranger, J.
Wigg, George


Leslie, J. R.
Rees-Williams, D. R
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Levy, B. W.
Reeves, J.
Wilkes, L.


Lindgren, G. S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lyne, A. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McAdam, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Willis, E.


McAllister, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


McEntee, V. La T
Royle, C.
Woods, G. S.


McGhee, H. G.
Scott-Elliot, W
Wyatt, W.


McGovern, J.
Segal, Dr. S
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McKinlay, A. S.
Sharp, Granville



MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Manning, G. (Camberwell, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Joseph Herderson and


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Baldwin, A. E,
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester).


Bennett, Sir P
Gridley, Sir A.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)


Bowen, R.
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bower, N.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hare, Mon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hogg, Hon. Q
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hurd, A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Osborne, C.


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Raikes, H. V.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Linstead, H. N.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col. L.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Low, A. R. W.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Major Sir J
Sanderson, Sir F.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Scott, Lord W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Maude, J. C.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Molson, A. H. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Moore. Lt.-Col Sir T
Walker-Smith, D







Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. Drewe and


Williams, C. (Torquay)

Commander Agnew.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Repeal of s. 3 of Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restrictions) Act, 1939.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to add:
(2) Any reference to the Minister of Civil Aviation in any other Section of the said Act, as amended by the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act, 1945, shall be omitted.
This is a drafting Amendment which brings the other Sections of the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restrictions) Act into line with subsequent legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Short title and interpretation.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out "Transitional," and to insert "Miscellaneous."

Mr. Gallacher: Let us take all the other Amendments together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Whether any time could be saved by taking all the Amendments together, I doubt. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who puts forward that suggestion, would not be able to follow the argument if we did. This Amendment is quite a simple one which, I hope, he will be able to follow. It is the question of the Title of the Bill. I think that anyone who has read the Bill will agree that the present Title is really a complete misnomer—Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill. In the Second Clause we find that, far from the Bill being transitional, it is making a good deal of permanent legislation. The Second Schedule, which occupies a considerable number of pages of the Bill—pages 11 to 17 inclusive—is going to be permanent law of this land, a permanent part of a permanent Bill. Therefore, the word "transitional" is completely inappropriate. That part of the law may remain indefinitely.
7.0 p.m.
Is "transitional" the right word to describe a Measure which keeps in force a whole body of Defence Regulations until 1950, a Measure which provides power for keeping regulations in force after 1950? It does not sound awfully transitional to me—although I must say that I hope that a great many of them will come to an end before 1950, or, at least, very shortly after 1950. I know with what delight hon. Members opposite would like to see the retention of controls. That hope may well be short-lived, because 1950, at any rate, might be the last time this Government can conduct a matter of this sort—indeed I think it will be before that. I say in all seriousness that there is something to be said for having our Acts of Parliament correctly entitled. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would welcome the suggestion that English should be used properly. The word "transitional" cannot, having regard to the content of this Measure, be regarded as in any way an apt word with which to describe it. I think the best word to describe it is "miscellaneous." It is miscellaneous, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now—because I do not want to take up any more of the Committee's time—accede to that proposal without any further argument.

Mr. Younger: I do not think this is a matter which makes a very substantial difference to the effect of the Bill. I quite see the force of the argument used by the hon. and learned Member, though I would not go so far as to follow him in his suggestion that the word "transitional" is not applicable to a period going on as far as 1950. I should have thought that, if the transitional period after a war such as we have been through lasted only five years, we might all congratulate ourselves. Nevertheless, I do see that a Bill containing many provisions which are to be permanent might be criticised on the ground that it should be called "transitional" at all. On the other hand, I should have thought—I put this forward for the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman—that if hon. Members opposite are anxious, as they have said they are, to have clarity and


ease of reference in this matter, a Bill which follows on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, and which deals only with the continuation or revocation of matters which appear in that Act, might well bear the same Title, even if that Title is, from the point of view of the purist in the English language, perhaps not strictly correct. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that the 1946 Act contained permanent provisions, too, but the word "transitional" was accepted in that instance. I put that forward for the consideration of the hon. and learned Member, but if he wishes to press this Amendment we do not challenge it, and my right hon. Friend would raise no objection.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I think it was the Home Secretary who, during Second Reading, pointed out that this was a Bill dealing with an enormous variety of topics. No doubt it almost passes human ingenuity to find a Title which would aptly describe the many things contained in this Bill. However, I do not think that is an argument for not making the description as accurate as we can. Frankly, I am rather puzzled by the word "transitional" in the Title. Presumably the transit is from somewhere to somewhere. Is this from war to peace?

Mr. Gallacher: From one period to another.

Mr. Digby: If we are not to have peaceful conditions until 1950, or, judging from what we have heard, considerably later, it does not seem to be a very sensible Title. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the best reason for keeping this Title is that we had a similar Title for the Act of last year. I do not think that is an altogether useful argument. That Act was passed only one year after the end of the war, but time is going on, and no doubt we shall have this appearing yet once again. Now is the time to make sure that we have the best Title, although we shall never get one to fit such a hotch-potch Bill as this.

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) could not quite have understood what the Parliamentary Secretary said. We are quite willing to accept this Amendment. The child is ours, and we gathered that hon. Members opposite did not want to be too closely

associated with its paternity. However, if they desire to act as Godparents and name the child, we are very glad to welcome them into the family circle. We accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Bearing in mind our assistance in trying to make the child a bit better does not really fasten parental responsibility upon us. I welcome the Under-Secretary's acceptance of this proposition. We do press this Amendment, because, even though it may be only a small one; it is not without importance, and this afternoon we on this side of the Committee are doing our best to amend this Bill and to make it better in many respects.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, to leave out "five."
Perhaps we might also discuss the following Amendment, in page 8, line 8, to leave out "First and Second Schedules," and to insert "Second Schedule," because the First Schedule mentioned here was similarly revoked by the same Act. The word "five" refers to Regulation 5 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939. That regulation has already been revoked by Section 28 (4) of the National Service Act, 1947, and, therefore, the word "five" is not necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 8, leave out "First and Second Schedules," and insert "Second Schedule."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Mannmgham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out lines 34 to 36.
We are now proceeding to consider the regulations contained in Part II of the First Schedule, which are to be continued in force until 31st December, 1948. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary told us that he had put these various Defence Regulations into different compartments after giving the matter—I think he said—long and careful consideration. I must confess I am a little puzzled why he made some of his decisions, and we have put down this Amendment because we should like


to hear, in particular, why it is that Defence Regulation 31A—which gives the Minister of Health power to
make arrangements for the provision of food or lodging or both for persons transferred under an evacuation plan"—
is to remain in force until 1948.
Speaking from recollection, I think that during the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman said that there were still some children and civil servants who were lodged in pursuance of an evacuation plan. We should be glad if we could be given some information about that. How many children are still evacuated? Is it proposed that there should be any further evacuation prior to 1948? How many civil servants are still evacuated under a plan? Is it proposed that they shall remain evacuated until 1948? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman will say, but I hope he will be able to tell us that in both instances the numbers are small. The efforts of the people of this country on whom evacuees were billeted during the war, and who carried that heavy burden throughout a long period, should be commended, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would commend them. The time has now come, surely, to say that there should be an end to evacuation, and that persons should be relieved of having people compulsorily billeted upon them? I hope we shall have a full explanation of why the right hon. Gentleman desires to retain this Defence Regulation.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): As has been said, the power to make regulations of this sort will expire at the end of next year. Obviously, we are not dealing here with a very serious position; but it is serious in this respect. If the powers expired at the end of this year, a very large number of poor people would find themselves in difficulty. There is still billeting, on a diminishing scale, of course, and we need these powers so that we can waive certain billeting charges when we do billet. If the powers were not handed to us, then the full charges would have to be met by the persons upon whom the billeting took place. The main reason for this power is that there is still a large number of homeless children. When the new Bill becomes law—we hope it will in this Session—deprived children will be handed over to the custody of the Home

Secretary under the new enactment for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be responsible. These powers will then be no longer necessary, and they will expire. Of course, if they are unnecessary before the end of the year, they will be revoked before the end of the year. The Committee can take it for granted that unless we have these powers, we shall not be able to look after these children until they are taken over by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I am a little puzzled, because Regulation 31A deals with the provision of lodging for persons transferred under an evacuation plan, whereas Regulation 22, which deals with billeting, retains the power of billeting until 1950. As I understand it, Regulation 31A applies only to the lodging of persons transferred under an evacuation plan. Is it the case that all these homeless children—and one sympathises with their plight—were evacuated under an evacuation plan?

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that at the time when they were evacuated they had parents, but that the parents were killed, and now they are orphans they have to be looked after.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought that might be the answer. It is as well to get this matter clear, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I hope that the time will soon come when we find adequate provision made for these children without having to exercise the powers of this regulation. In view of the explanation, which satisfies us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, to leave out line 37.
The purpose of this Amendment is to raise a similar probing inquiry. I think that we are entitled to ask why Regulation 32 is to be continued until 1948, particularly in view of the recent legislation dealing with hospitals. Surely, if the powers contained in this regulation were wanted until the end of 1948, they ought to have been included in the new Measure. I cannot recollect whether they were included or not, but I am puzzled


to know why this regulation, dealing with hospitals and ambulances, should be continued, when it was only recently that we passed the National Health Act.

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged for this inquiry, which gives me an opportunity to make the position clear. There are a number of hospitals which are still run under the Emergency Hospitals Scheme, and in them there are some 10,000 patients who would be turned on the road immediately if we had not these powers. When the new Act comes into operation next year and these hospitals are assimilated into the new scheme, these powers will no longer be necessary, and they will naturally expire.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He will appreciate that this Amendment was not put down with a view to trying to take away these powers, but in order to obtain information. In view of the fact that we regard the explanation as satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Regulation fifty-two (Use of land for purposes of His Majesty's Forces).

This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in page 9, to leave out line 31. The purpose of these Amendments is to take Regulation 52 out of Part III and to put it into Part II. This regulation provides for the use of land for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces. This matter has been the subject of considerable debate and discussion, and I do not propose to summarise or remind the Committee of the arguments. I think I am right in saying that inquiries have been held, reports promised, and all sorts of undertakings given that the use of land for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces would be regulated and restricted at a fairly early date. If that is so, one wonders why this regulation has been put into Part III, rather than Part II, where it would expire on 31st December, 1948. Surely, another year is long enough for His Majesty's Government to determine to what extent they want to retain in their possession land which was used for the purposes of His Majesty's Forces during the war. Surely, the matter could be concluded within a

year and this regulation, which has caused so much dissatisfaction in Norfolk and elsewhere, could be brought to an end.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): In replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. It is unusual for a junior Minister, in the third Session of a Parliament, to ask for the indulgence of hon. Members on the grounds that it is the first time he has had the honour of addressing the House, either as a House or in Committee. It is true that I have on occasions suggested "That this House do now adjourn," and that I have made other brief remarks. I can only hope that what I have to say on this occasion will result in as rapid agreement as have the few remarks I have made at other times.
The question at issue on this Amendment is whether this regulation should continue in force until the end of 1948, or until December, 1950. It is a regulation which gives force to any orders enabling the Government to use land for the purpose of military training. I do not think it will be the wish of the Members in any part of the Committee to cause a serious hiatus in military training. We have, however, to consider whether this hiatus could possibly be avoided if this regulation were to come to an end as early as December, 1948. It is the intention of the War Office, with the other Service Departments, permanently to acquire such land as may be necessary for the purpose of military training as soon as possible. Once that is done the exceptional powers wielded under the regulation would no longer be required.
The question naturally arises as to how long it will be before the permanent acquisition of such land as is needed for military training can replace the emergency powers springing from this regulation. Before such permanent acquisition could occur, there would first have to be the issue of the White Paper on Service Land Requirements which has very frequently been referred to in this House. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence referred to this matter at Question time yesterday, and expressed the hope that this White Paper would be issued with a short period.


Its issue has inevitably been delayed by the recent reconsideration of the size of the Armed Forces. That was an inevitable delay. When it is clear what lands are required it is important that the War Office should not proceed in an arbitrary manner to acquire land without careful consideration of the needs of local authorities, private interested parties, other Government Departments and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a year would be long enough for His Majesty's Government to determine the matter. If it were simply a question of arbitrary determination a year might be sufficient, but before the permanent acquisition occurs it is our practice to consult with the local authorities, and other interested parties, and put the proposals before any Department of the Government that may be interested. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a speech in February of this year, said that before there was any major acquisition a public inquiry would be held. It is because we are so anxious not to proceed in this matter in an arbitrary way, but with careful consultation, that we can reasonably claim that it is bound to be longer than a year before we can completely replace the exceptional powers for using land by a permanent acquisition of such land as is required for military training.
It is not the intention to make use of the powers contained in this regulation by acquiring any further land beyond what is already held under orders arising from it. At present that is a total, if we consider the three Service Departments—and a small quantity under the control of the Ministry of Supply—of some 670,000 acres. It is not the intention to add to that figure, but we are convinced that if we proceed in a reasonable manner, and have regard to all the interests involved, the process of permanent acquisition is bound to be slow. If this regulation were to lapse at the end of 1948, it would lapse before we had been able to replace it by the permanent acquisition of the necessary land. There would, therefore, be the serious risk of a dangerous hiatus in the military training of the Forces. It is for those reasons I ask for the rejection of this Amendment.

Mr. Digby: I would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the way he has

acquitted himself at the Despatch Box, despite a very long vow of silence as a Government Whip. I am very glad to see he has not suffered, as his exposition could not have been clearer. He rightly said that it was important that there should be continuity of training for the Forces. We would all agree. But he will appreciate, too, that the agricultural community has to plan ahead as well, and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the country on account of these areas of land which are taken over by the Service Ministries. The agricultural community needs to know as soon as possible where it stands, more particularly on account of the urgency of food production at present and other difficulties which make it more than ever necessary to plan ahead. I hope he will hurry up, and that agriculturists will know, as early as possible, what land will be permanently retained and what they are likely to get back.
I am not quite clear whether paragraph (1, c) is still in force under this regulation. Last July, I asked a Question about the closing of highways, and I received a reply that there were over 1,500 highways in this country which were closed to the public. I gather most of them were closed under Defence Regulation 16, which is being modified in this Bill. I would like to know how many are now retained, or are to be retained, under Defence Regulation 52? A great deal of inconvenience is caused to the public, two years after the war, by the closing of these highways. This is another matter on which I hope the Service Departments will make up their minds quickly.
Although this Defence Regulation refers to the use of land, I gather it also refers to the use of sea. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. There is an area of sea just off the coast in my constituency which the Service Departments intend to take over for bombing and other firing practice by planes of the Ministry of Supply. That matter is now under consideration. I was therefore particularly interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that no new orders would be made under Defence Regulation 52. I am wondering if that means that he is undertaking that this stretch of sea in which I am interested will not be taken under this regulation, and whether other powers will be sought if necessary. It seems wrong that, two


years after the end of the war, control of a completely fresh area of land or sea should be taken by a Service Department when they already hold such a large amount in proportion to the size of the Forces.
7.30 p.m.
Finally, on the question of land which is held under this regulation we have, in Dorset, the Purbeck Hills, an area which has been retained for a very long time. The original understanding was that it would be derequisitioned. Not only does the holding of it deny the land for agricultural purposes but it also causes great hardship to hikers and others who wish to walk from one spot to another along the beautiful line of sea coast. We are wondering what decision will be reached on this matter. While appreciating the difficulties of the Service Ministers, that they must plan their training ahead, I beg the Under-Secretary to remember that other people have to plan ahead too, more particularly the agricultural community.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like to emphasise what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby), particularly from the point of view of food production. We have had the very valuable statement from the Under-Secretary that no more land is to be taken under this regulation. But 670,000 acres is a great deal and it is quite clear that the ultimate requirements of the Government must be very far short of that figure. I appreciate that a considerable proportion of this acreage is not land which would grow any very large crop but, nevertheless, every little counts these days, and I want to ask the Service Departments to release all the land they possibly can in time for next year's crop. It is obvious that the situation for our people will be very serious next year, and every possible step should be taken to make certain that any derequisitioning occurs sufficiently quickly to allow full cultivation of the land so derequisitioned.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman urging the Government to take over all the land of the country, and allocate the maximum amount for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman probably has not much of this land in his

constituency, and does not appreciate the point I was trying to make. It might well be that a very large amount of this acreage would, normally, be released fairly early next year, but not soon enough for the farmer to make full use of it during the coming cropping season. I hope that the Service. Departments will give the farmer or occupier of the land advance information, so that plans can be made in time, and that they will give up every possible acre sufficiently early to allow full use to be made of that land for food growing next year. If the hon. Gentleman can say that the Service Departments will do these two things I think that that will be as much as we can ask of the Government for today.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have listened with great interest to the valuable suggestion that whenever we are considering releasing land we should bear in mind next year's crop, and give advance information. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will not expect me to make a precise statement as to the procedure we can adopt in every case, but we shall pay careful attention to the point which has just been made. In reply to the hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby), it is correct that there is still power under this regulation to stop up a highway. I cannot tell him the number of highways that have been stopped up for the purposes of the Service Departments, but my recollection is that it is very small. I think I am correct in saying that, technically, this regulation would apply to the use of sea as well as land, although the number of occasions when that has any relevance must be quite small. The hon. Member mentioned the Purbeck Hills, a case which illustrates the difficulties under which we are labouring. We have the claims of military training, agriculture, hikers, and aesthetic considerations at the same time, and it is because there are so many balancing claims that it is important not to rush into permanent acquisition.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: After the hon. Gentleman's excellent maiden speech, followed so quickly by an excellent second speech, it would indeed be ungracious to divide the Committee on this matter. We have no intention of doing so, but we hope that the White Paper which has been promised for so long will


soon be published, so that we can arrive at a final solution of this difficult problem. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade the military authorities to disgorge some of the land now in their possession. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 8, line 39, at the end, to insert:
Regulation fifty-five C (Restrictions on registration of new clubs).
It may be for the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner, if we discuss this Amendment with the Amendment to this Schedule in page 9, to leave out line 32, as I think it is consequential.

The Chairman: The Chairman indicated assent

Sir J. Mellor: The purpose of this Amendment is to transfer Regulation 55C from Part III of the Bill to Part II, to secure that this regulation shall continue only until the end of 1948 instead of the end of 1950. This is not a matter which should be dealt with by regulation any longer. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the provisions in the regulation. It may well be that those provisions, or something similar should be permanently enacted, but this should be a matter for statutory provision and no longer for regulation. I think it most probable that the law as it existed in 1942, before this regulation was made, was inadequate for the purpose of ensuring that bogus clubs did not flourish in too great numbers and too easily. However, I do not wish to examine that point tonight. I suggest that it would be quite appropriate that this regulation should be permitted to continue for, say, one more year to enable the Government to examine this question carefully and introduce whatever legislation they deem to be necessary. This regulation provides that the police can object to the registration of a new club on certain grounds, including the existence of adequate facilities in the neighbourhood and incomplete particulars in the application.
They can also object on the ground that the people who propose to manage the club are not of the most desirable character. The applicant can appeal against police objection, and it is provided in Paragraph 3 of the regulation that the court shall if satisfied that the objection

is unreasonable, but not otherwise, authorise the registration of the club. The regulation also provides for police inspection of the club before registration is effected.
I ask the Government what is their real motive in desiring to continue these provisions by regulation. I am prepared to assume that it will be generally agreed that some such measures are necessary, though, I repeat, that it is our contention that it should be done by Statute. Do the Government consider that these restrictions and measures of control should be continued merely because of the emergency? Do they consider that the pro-visions of Regulation 55C are exclusively related to the emergency, or is it, in the view of the Government, desirable, sooner or later, to have amending legislation? Do they consider that, at the present time, apart from the special circumstances of the emergency, the law as it stood before 1942 is adequate for the purpose. As I have endeavoured to make clear, I do not wish to express any opinion on the merits, but I am extremely anxious to ascertain what is the Government's policy, and, in my submission, if they do not take the view that the reason for continuing this regulation is solely related to the emergency, they ought to be prepared to come to the House with a Bill which can be fully debated, so that we can then put on the Statute Book a measure which will be appropriate.
I know that that would be highly controversial. Anything touching the licensing laws is always controversial, but not, I think, on party lines. It would be a matter which would be regarded as of great interest by the House, and, therefore, I feel that we want some guidance from the Government as to what is their policy. Do they want to keep on this regulation merely because of the circumstances arising out of the emergency, or are they keeping it on with a view, sooner or later, of enacting in permanent statutory form some similar provisions. I feel that we ought to know. I submit that if they take the latter view and intend to introduce permanent legislation, we should have it in the course of the next year, and I think that it would be quite long enough to continue in force this regulation until the end of 1948. This is a matter which the House should have an opportunity of debating. It is not a matter of party


controversy, and it is the kind of thing upon which the experience of the House should be brought to bear, in order that we may get legislation more suitably adapted than emergency legislation can possibly be. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give a full answer to these points.

Mr. Digby: This is not the kind of regulation that we like to see continued for three years, unless we can be given by the Parliamentary Secretary a good explanation as to why it is necessary. I do not know the reason why the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, is not considered sufficient, and why it is considered necessary to place all these additional powers in the hands of the police. It is not a principle which I like unless there is a very good reason for adopting it. Is it necessary before any club can be started at the moment that the names of all the persons who have joined, or who wish to join, should be furnished to the police? I do not fully understand why that is necessary. I can understand that in time of war it was necessary to check up on matters of this kind, but now that the war has been over for two years, I think that we need a serious explanation before we are asked to accept these provisions for another three years.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised this matter and for the manner in which they have discussed it. I am nearly in agreement with all the points put by both hon. Members. In answer to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the Government think that permanent provision should be made, and will have to be made, on those lines. As the hon. Member said, this provision was made in 1942, and it was made very largely in order to economise in manpower, particularly in the police force. Nevertheless, it is true that the old law was inadequate in several respects. I should detain the Committee a long time if I tried to explain all the adequacies and inadequacies of the licensing laws. I will only mention two points. Firstly, if a club was closed, it was very easy for it to open up again the next day under another name, and, secondly, it was exceedingly hard because of the lack of any power on the part of the police, to enter and obtain the evidence necessary to prosecute.
The only point on which I may differ from the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field is that I do not think it will be possible to introduce permanent legislation before the end of 1948. It is, as I say, desirable that permanent legislation should be introduced to deal with clubs, but as the hon. Member said, this is a very controversial subject. There are many interests involved, and there are, of course, in addition to the interests of the authorities and of the police, the interests of the temperance societies and the club associations, and those are very often in conflict. It is a very difficult matter to introduce and obtain agreement upon a consolidating Measure relating to clubs, and it would be misleading the public and the Committee if the Government were to suggest that they could bring in successfully such a Bill before the end of 1948. Therefore, it has been considered desirable to put this in Part III of the Schedule, to expire at the end of 1950.
The only other thing I wish to say relates to the question of whether there is any substantial objection to the present regulation continuing for that length of time under the present procedure. If it were really oppressive, I should think that there was great point in what had been said, and the suggestion that it should be included in Part II instead of Part III, but it has, in fact, worked well. There has been, so far as I am aware, no substantial complaint about it. It has been welcomed by the courts which, after all, are impartial in the matter, and it has certainly continued to be extremely economical from the manpower point of view. Admittedly, the situation is not the same as it was in 1942, but we all know the difficulties of the police, and I think that is a justification for continuing it at this time as one of the emergency aspects of the regulations. It does, in fact, enable the police to save a great deal of manpower.

Mr. Digby: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why is it necessary for the police to have the names of all members of new clubs?

Mr. Younger: I do not think it is all members; it says that if they become or agree to become members of the club. That, of course, is the moment before the club is registered and they are presumed not to be casual members, but members


interested in its formation. Therefore, they are a guide to some extent of what the character of the club will be.
I do not think that any substantial complaint has been made of the use of the powers, which have been found useful and beneficial and we have met with the approval of the courts. There is, of course, provision for an appeal and there have been a number of appeals, some of them successful. In view of the fact that there is no prospect that permanent consolidating legislation can be introduced in sufficient time to ensure continuity for the regulation, I ask the Committee to leave it in Part III. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams: I am astonished when I listen to speech after speech from the Government Front Bench. They always seem to give as one of the reasons why they should keep on these regulations until 1950 that it is to avoid controversy. The Under-Secretary has told us that we cannot deal with it now because it would be a controversial subject. Legislation dealing with registration of clubs at the present time would be controversial, but surely that is no reason why we should keep this regulation in force for three years. I should have thought that that was one of the reasons we should keep it only for one year and not three. Then next year, if it is necessary, and the Government are unable to find time for legislation of this kind, they could enact this regulation for a further year.
After all, it is admitted that this is a war-time regulation and everyone admits that it was adopted then largely to meet circumstances which arose through the shortage of manpower. It does, as the Under-Secretary said quite fairly, help the police at a time when they are short of men and facing certain difficulties. That is the main reason why it should continue, and I do not disagree with that at all. I do not think it is an unfair reason to put forward. Are we sure, however, that it is necessary, simply because of that, to keep this regulation on for another three years? That is the whole point. That is an argument which has been advanced again and again today, because the Government have repeatedly said: "We must pass this regulation into law until 1950 because it is not convenient to deal

with this subject at the present time." We ought to be more concerned with the interests of the ordinary people of the country than with the convenience of the Government's programme.
For the reason that this is a matter to which Parliament ought to address itself, I support the Amendment. There are a great variety of clubs, but I have no wish to get on to that subject at the present time, because I might find some forms of clubs of which, for instance, the Minister of Health and I might approve, and there are other clubs about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and I might disagree. I might dislike one form of club and he another. I might dislike a temperance club, or he might like it. On the other hand, we might find ourselves in trouble because we would both like one, of which someone else would take a different view, particularly someone on this side of the Committee. Op this particular occasion I think the Government should give way. They have been pretty tough all day. They have not done much to meet our point of view.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has not got any point of view.

Mr. Williams: I see the Home Secretary looking at me, and I would say to him that in my opinion it would be an excellent thing if he would give us a chance of discussing this thing once again next year. I have no wish to do it, but I know a vast number of people in this House would like to have a prolonged discussion on it. They do not happen to be present now, but they would like to join in a Debate on this subject next year.

Mr. Gallacher: Where are they?

Mr. Williams: I do not know that I could really define where all of them are at this very moment, but it is conceivable that one or two of them are having dinner. I ask the Home Secretary to say that he will accept this Amendment because I do not think it will do any great harm. It is one which could be put into the Bill and it would do the Bill good. From the look of this Amendment, I am not altogether certain, but I think I would have the fullest and heartiest support of the Minister of Health for my proposition if I pressed the Government on it.

Sir J. Mellor: I appreciate the carefully considered answer which the Under-Secretary of State gave and also the manner in which he gave it. I am sorry I cannot respond to his request, because this is a matter on which the Government intend to legislate, and they should legislate on it in the course of the next year. It would be a highly controversial Bill but it would be, for a change, a Bill on which the ordinary party cleavages would not apply. It would do the House a world of good to have a Debate on a Bill of that sort. I do not think the Government ought to grudge the Parliamentary time. It is the kind of matter on which the collective wisdom of Members would be of very great value. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot withdraw the Amendment, because I consider this regulation ought to be dealt with in the way I have suggested and that legislation should be introduced before the end of 1948.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out "thirteen."
We now turn to a rather different part which deals with jurors at trials. Regulation 13, which is found on page 220 of the Defence Regulations, provides that:
No person indicted for treason or felony shall have any right of peremptory challenge of jurors.
That means that a prisoner cannot challenge a juror without giving a reason for the challenge. Before this Defence Regulation was made, any person charged with high treason could challenge, without giving any reason, no fewer than 35 jurors, and in cases of murder and other felonies he had the right to challenge 20 times without giving any reason. I do not know on how many occasions in recent years that right has been exercised. I cannot call to mind with any degree of clarity any particular occasion on which it has been exercised, although I have a hazy recollection of hearing of it being done some years ago. Whether or not it is normally made use of by accused persons, there is a strong case for its retention, if not perhaps to the same extent as heretofore. Let me put this hypothetical case to the Committee. Supposing the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—

Mr. Gallacher: Keep me out of it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I will take another entirely hypothetical case. Suppose I had the misfortune to be charged with the offence of felony. Suppose that the first person who walked into the jury box—the offence having a slightly political tinge—was the hon. Member for West Fife.

Mr. Gallacher: You are well away.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would not like to take a chance on it, in spite of the hon. Member's assurance. I should feel grave doubts whether I could rely upon his coming to the right conclusion on a matter of that sort. Be that as it may, I can well see, in all seriousness that in years to come, although I hope that all racial feeling will diminish, there may be occasions when a man accused may have very strong objection to a particular person sitting as a juror, and also a strong reason for not disclosing his ground for objection in open court. There is a great deal to be said for the idea that, on a limited number of occasions, a man who is charged with a serious offence should be able to say, without revealing something in his private history—perhaps he has quarreled with the individual—"I object to that man acting as juror at this trial."
I appreciate that this subject will also come up for consideration upon the discussion at some stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, which will receive its Second Reading shortly. At the same time I think it is right to take this opportunity of putting this argument before the Committee in the hope that, if we do not succeed in moving an Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position and will himself move an Amendment, not destroying the right of peremptory challenge but possibly reducing the number of occasions on which it can be exercised.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the indication of his views on a subject which will be fully discussed upon another occasion. He will not expect me tonight to enter upon the merits of this case. As he has stated, a provision covering this matter appears in the Criminal Justice Bill, which we are to start debating at the end of the coming week. Therefore, there will be a


full opportunity for thrashing this matter out. The reason the regulation was originally introduced was, of course, strictly practical and material, and did not go to the roots of the merits of the question because of the grave administrative difficulties sometimes involved of summoning a panel of jurymen and having to keep a reserve to make up for possible challenges. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there would be considerable objections upon manpower grounds to calling a large and unnecessary reserve of jurymen. As the matter has to be finally decided in so short a time, I think it would be unreasonable to expect that a regulation which has existed for some time should lapse. In fact, it is very likely, even if it lapses at the end of the coming year, that it would leave only a month or two at the very most before it would be overtaken by the permanent provisions of the Bill. It seems much more reasonable to ensure continuity by keeping it on for just that time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member has put forward a case for not carrying the Amendment, but he really has not dealt with the substance of the argument which I addressed to the Committee. I hope that he will say two things before we pass from the Amendment: one, that the views which I have expressed will be carefully considered between now and the discussion of the question on that Bill, and, secondly, that if it is decided, as I hope it will be, to retain in a limited form the right of peremptory challenge, to give an undertaking that in that event this Regulation 13 will be revoked before the end of 1948. If he will give that assurance—

Mr. Younger: I have no difficulty whatever in giving that assurance.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out "fifteen A."
Again this is a matter which will come up, I think, for consideration upon the Criminal Justice Bill. It is wrong in principle that a jury in a murder, treason

or treason felony case should be allowed to disperse, and meet and talk with all kinds of people. We do not know what has been said to them or who has spoken to them. One realises the necessity in wartime and that this had to be, but I hope that this is one of the regulations which we shall see brought to an end long before the end of 1948.

Mr. Younger: This is precisely the same point as arose on the previous Amendment. It will also be dealt with under Clause 28 of the Criminal Justice Bill. Perhaps I can give an assurance, in advance of being asked to do so, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view on this matter will be taken into account. The immediate need for this regulation, as opposed to the need for it to be incorporated in the permanent law of the land, is the difficulty of accommodation. It proved difficult in the war and the difficulties are scarcely less at the moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the same argument that I addressed to him on the previous Amendment in favour of continuing this regulation until the matter can be incorporated in or overtaken by the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 12 and 13.
This Amendment refers to identity cards. The purpose of the Amendment is to challenge the continued necessity of this document. The identity card may be compared to a passport, which is issued to the citizen of this country when he travels in a foreign land. I think the comparison is not without value in arriving at a fair estimation of the purpose of this document. Prima facie, the traveller has no right in the foreign country. He is not a native member of the community, and unless he is accompanied by documents which show his origin it has been the custom to regard him as a little bit suspicious. Therefore it has been the practice of Governments to issue to their citizens who travel in a foreign land this document which has declared the holder to be a citizen of his country, and has asked for the protection of everyone with whom he came into contact. The document has been


signed by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
On general principle, and without going into the overriding temporary necessities, the idea should be that a free-born member of the community is entitled to go without let or hindrance in his own realm. He should not be under the necessity of proving his identity or of producing a document to vouch that he is an ordinary British citizen. We can only justify the continuance of the identity card system by alleging certain special conditions of a temporary character. During the war and before the war it was expected that the incidence upon our towns and cities of aerial bombardment would compel large-scale diffusion of population and of industries into regions of the country to which they had hitherto been strangers. It was anticipated that the great upheaval of the population would make it necessary to provide the ordinary citizens with a document of identity whereby in those strange communities to which they were sent by force majeure and not by their own will, they could prove to their new neighbours who they were, and thus avoid sudden suspicion being directed against a stranger who was posted to a new community. With the added stringency of wartime, rationing had to come in, and it was also thought that a rationing system would be helped by the production, in a strange community where a man was not known, of an identity card. Those were the reasons which brought the system into being.
Now that more than two years have passed since the end of the war, we ought seriously to consider whether the time is not overdue to get rid of what was an innovation introduced in order to meet a temporary set of conditions. There is no doubt that they are troublesome documents to some people. They frequently get lost, involving the owner in difficulties of one kind or another simply because he has not got a certain piece of paper. Law-abiding citizens who live in one community are particularly prone to lose them because they are known by all their neighbours and do not carry the cards. The dishonest man—the spiv, as he has been called—is generally possessed, I am told, of five or six different identity cards which he produces at his pleasure to meet the changing exigencies of his adventurous career. So in the detection and prevention

of crime no case can be made out for the identity card. I understand that this is also a matter which is being touched upon in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I offer it as my opinion that the unjust are possessed of many identity cards whereas the just are frequently placed in positions of embarrassment by temporarily losing them.
The argument advanced on Second Reading—I conceive it to be the main argument for the retention of these troublesome documents—was that as long as rationing persists they are necessary. I do not believe it. We were told in the House the other day that there are 20,000 deserters still at large. How have those 20,000 persons contrived to equip themselves with food and clothing? Ex hypothesi they cannot be possessed of valid, honest identity cards, but that has not prevented them from sustaining themselves with food and clothing themselves with raiment without those documents. Therefore, as a deterrent to the evasion of the rationing arrangements the case is proved that they are of little or, at the best, of speculative, value. That they are necessary for the operation of a rationing system is certainly open to doubt. There was rationing of food in the war in which I was privileged to play a part, but there were no identity cards. History therefore proves that they are not necessary for a rationing system. If we made the food rationing card the document of identity for purposes of food and clothing rationing, we could now dispense with the identity card.
8.15 p.m.
Now that the population have been given an opportunity to settle down in their own habitations, I submit that the time for these documents has passed. They served a useful purpose during the war, and I remember, when I was Post-master-General, making an Order which asked for the production of an identity card for certain withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank. It gave the clerk power to ask for production of an identity card if a person came into a post office with a Savings Bank book for a withdrawal demand. The reason I made it sprang from the same wide and unnatural diffusion of the population necessitated by war. It was also to meet the difficulty which people might have of making remittances from distant parts of the country, and


in order that the postmaster might issue up to £10 on demand, if he was satisfied of the person's identity and circumstances. That was a concomitant of the times when there were a lot of people about who are not with us now. It was necessary to take certain steps to prevent frauds on the Post Office Savings Bank. But I do not believe that is necessary today. The Post Office Savings Bank could get on perfectly well without asking for production of identity cards. This is an age of paper, and the paper daily grows more voluminous. We should do as much as we can to simplify life, and restore it to its ancient freedom, and absence of formality. We should restore to the citizen the dignity of his rights and privileges, without the necessity for the production of a piece of paper to prove who he is.

Mr. Bevan: With the general point of view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed I am in entire agreement. I believe that the requirement of an internal passport is more objectionable than an external passport, and that citizens ought to be allowed to move about freely without running the risk of being accosted by a policeman or anyone else, and asked to produce proof of identity. It is evidence of a stable society that we can be exempted from interference of that sort. Therefore, I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on that issue. Indeed, ever since I have been in my present office I have been modifying demands made on the citizen in respect of the production of identity cards, and have issued modifying regulations from time to time. Everyone will admit that the identity card is a little onerous on the individual citizen.
However, it is not necessary for me to argue whether identity cards are involved in the present Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing something hopelessly irrelevant to the present position. If this Amendment were carried, all that would happen would be that the citizen would be subjected to the inconveniences from which I have exempted him. The identity cards are issued not under the regulation challenged here, but under the original National Registration Act. If the Committee carried this Amendment, the situation would be simply that the identity card

would be encrusted, festooned and surrounded by the irritations of the war days. Therefore, I am rather astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have delivered his homily upon the virtues of freedom from this sort of interference. I want again to press the point that the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to restore all the irritations surrounding the identity card when it was in its full panoply.
What we have done progressively is to attenuate its evils until now it is almost a popular document. Indeed, if we accepted the Amendment, the citizen would be subjected to very great inconveniences. For example, it would be impossible to determine—though it is now stated on the identity card—whether a person is or is not an alien, and he would be called up for service. We would not know a man's nationality until he was called up. Therefore, a very large number of people would be hauled up to the Armed Forces, and, having been hauled up, it would then be discovered that they were not liable for service. Further, it would be impossible, except by the regulations which we are retaining, to issue temporary ration cards. Once a ration card was issued, it would be a permanent ration card until its renewal. Therefore, a lot of people would be receiving rations to which they were not entitled, because under the existing powers we give temporary ration cards.
These powers are necessary. I am assured by the Registrar-General's Department that identity cards are invaluable in checking the issue of ration books. People have to satisfy the food authorities that they are the persons for whom the ration books are intended. A great deal of fraud is prevented in that direction. I could go on for a long time to emphasise the various ways in which the innocuous use of the identity card facilitates the existing situation, but that would be merely pushing at an open door. What is the use of arguing the merits of this proposition tonight, because the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that we ought not to make the identity card a source of irritation? His Amendment would make it a positive source of irritation and, therefore, I think it would be wise in the interests of his own case that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams: The speech we have just heard has really been a wonderful one, as a complete condemnation of the whole Bill. The Minister would agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) is a pretty careful Parliamentarian, as is the Minister himself. We have been considering many regulations, and it is extremely difficult for the Opposition to know all about them. The Minister very fairly admits that. What has happened in this case? We have gone through the Bill and we have seen this regulation which is one of many regulations, and my right hon. Friend put down the Amendment, quite obviously by mistake, to go back to the original use of identity cards. None of us wants that. It is a mistake which any Opposition might make at any time. I think that the Minister was quite justified in making the point. I do not think that he did it unfairly, but it is no argument for keeping identity cards.

Mr. Bevan: This is getting a little hard. What I have been trying to say is that, if the Amendment is carried, it does not abolish the identity card but restores a worse identity card.

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I was trying to say. I was saying how fair the right hon. Gentleman had been in saying that it was taking us right back to the old original position. I am sorry if I confused the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member supporting the Amendment or opposing it?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will hear about that in due course. It is quite clear that this Amendment, in its present form, is not the Amendment that is wanted here, but, on the other hand, it does raise the question of the identity card. It is now pointed out that the identity card is necessary for food and for other things. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual political skill, did not say that the Minister of Labour might want it. That may only be my own naughty idea, or it may not, but, at any rate, it does seem to me that it might be one of the uses of the identity card in the same way as food, and I see no reason why it should not be asked for.
There is a further point. If the Government insist on retaining the identity card,

what they are really telling this country is that they expect rationing and all that sort of thing to go on for three years. Surely, they could reduce it to one year and let us go into it once again next year. I know that is most unpopular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they do not like these discussions, and I know that, if I developed that argument too far, I might get into trouble with some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would like to refer to the interruption made just now by the hon. Gentleman who is the representative of the Communist Party—

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman is just making a filibuster.

Mr. Williams: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to call me a filibuster but, if he is telling the Committee that I am not pleasing to the Government, I am very glad, because I am not here for the purpose of pleasing the Government. The question I am trying to decide is how I shall vote on this Amendment in the event of a Division.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought the purpose of the hon. Gentleman rising was to indicate to the Committee how he proposed to vote.

Mr. Williams: I rather thought that that was one of the points in my rising, and, possibly, that is why I say that I had come to the question how I might vote. Quite clearly, the Amendment does not really do what it seeks to do, and, now that the matter has been discussed, I am suggesting, without wishing: to curtail the discussion in any way, that, when the time does arrive, it might be useful and practicable for my right hon. Friend—and it might be quite easy for him, and this is a usual thing in this House—not to divide the Committee on the matter but to withdraw. I do not think I need use any long argument on that matter. From the universal attention which I have received from hon. Members opposite, it is apparent that almost every right hon. or hon. Gentleman on that side of the Committee, and, indeed, every hon. Lady, wanted to get up and support me on this matter.

8.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling: There is a great deal more in this matter than appears on the surface. I remember, in the old days, that the S.P.G.B. used to


regard the S.D.F. as a revolutionary party at half cock. Tonight, we have the Minister of Health, also a revolutionary at half cock. He cannot understand the Amendment because he says that if we carry it, we shall be back to a worse position than if we allowed the Government proposal to stand. The right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that this Opposition do not want the public to be increasingly doped by diluted Socialist and totalitarian legislation. What he desires is that we should get back to the crudity of these wartime regulations. The public are continually finding out that the diluted Socialist, the S.D.F. as against the S.P.G.B—and I know that the Home Secretary does not know what the S.P.G.B. means; it was a very correct organisation which would take up the position that I am taking up against the Minister of Health tonight—

The Deputy-Chairman: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that, so far, he has not spoken a word on the Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: I was endeavouring, with undue elaboration, because of the simplicity, ignorance and innocence of the Committee, to lead up to the main argument, which is that I would sooner have the Opposition Amendment because it is crude and rude, and because it would bring sharply and plainly to the public mind the imposition which the carrying of identity cards involves. It would not be a diluted proposal, such as is the Government's proposal modified by the generous reformist sympathies of the Minister of Health; it would be a crude, harsh, staggering blow in the face of those who have been accustomed to liberty. Therefore, I stand for this Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: Are we to understand from what he says that the hon. Gentleman is more ruthless than his hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and is prepared to torture the British public in order to further his political prejudices?

Sir W. Darling: I am not a reformist like the Minister of Health, but, in this matter, I am a revolutionary. We either abolish the identity card or make it reappear in its original crudity and its effective denial of freedom. The Minister

of Health said that he preferred the attenuated body to the full-blooded body. This weakening of his taste is the first mark of the decline of his character. I had always looked upon him as a full-blooded man, but today he has expressed his desire for the attenuated rather than for the full-blooded. In those circumstances, I will vote against him.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has repeated himself many times over.

Sir W. Darling: I have still something to say which is not repetition. I say that these cards, which we would rather intensify than abolish, have produced spivs, drones and eels. They have produced them, not eliminated them. The contention of the Minister of Health seems to be quite beside the point. He should make this hard rigid rule implicit upon every member of the public, and he should abolish it altogether. This halfway Measure is unworthy of him and unworthy of the Government.

Mr. Jenning: I did not intend to intervene until I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there has apparently been some misunderstanding about this Amendment. He proceeded to tell the Committee that he did not want to make the life of the people in this country irksome, and he disagreed with the carrying about of an internal passport. I am not quite satisfied yet that my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is going to accept all he said, but I do feel that because he suggested there has been some misunderstanding in this Amendment, the Minister's arguments for not withdrawing the identity card were not satisfactory. He admitted himself in the first place that he did not want to worsen the irksome restrictions we now have in the country. If he is to have this regulation for three years—and he is against it in principle except that it has some point in connection with food, etc.—surely, a better case has been made out on this matter than on anything else, for the carrying on of this regulation for one year only and not three years, to give him the opportunity to see if the position changes within that time. The Minister himself is against a good deal of it, except for those points, and yet he does not offer the Committee a restriction on the limit of three years.

Mr. Bevan: I am quite sure that there is no misunderstanding here. What is before the Committee is not the National Registration Act, 1939. What is before the Committee is the power given under the Bill to the Minister of Health to modify the application of the Act of 1939, and make the identity card progressively less irksome. This is what we have been doing, hut if the Amendment were carried, that power would be taken away and the irritation would all be restored.

Mr. Jennings: That is exactly the point I was trying to find out from the Minister. What a helpful suggestion has he made? He has criticised the Amendment, and says if this Amendment is accepted the position will be worse than ever. He knew the objections, and has not put forward any proposition to meet them.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I wish to say a few words in reply to what has just been said. It is a very important subject, a question of policy, and I do not think the Committee or the House would seek to evade the question of the principle at stake by any quibbling about the precise terms in which the Amendment has been drafted. The fact is that this regulation, which would be struck out by this Amendment, is one which we passed last year in a modified form in the Measure, of which this is the successor. It was in effect adapting the identity card system of the National Registration Act, 1939, to peacetime conditions, and my argument is directed to the inapplicability of this document, in peace-time conditions.

Mr. Bevan: Which document?

Mr. Morrison: The identity card.

Mr. Bevan: I say with all respect that the Act of 1939 remains, and it is not challenged. It is not now before the Committee. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing, and he ought to admit it, is challenging the power to adapt the Act of 1939 to peace-time conditions.

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that that is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, but my argument to the Committee is somewhat different. I hope he will listen to the argument. The position is that last year we made certain modifications to this regulation, designed for one year only to preserve the power to vary the National Registration Act, 1939, with regard to identity cards. My

main argument on policy, which is not to be evaded or defeated by any narrow legalistic or artificial construction, it that we ought now to consider the abolition of these documents.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order. Is this a matter which is before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue his argument.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged, Mr. Beaumont. In my submission, this matter is before the Committee. If I had thought the right hon. Gentleman would adopt this line of argument in saying, "If we accept this Amendment we intend to do nothing about the main point of principle", I should not have moved it, but I should have expected something more from him. If he had said, "We will accept your Amendment and take steps to remove this anomaly altogether from our system by repealing the relevant provisions of the National Registration Act," we should have accomplished something. But as the right hon. Gentleman stands on what I consider to be a legalistic point of view, and throws himself back on the provisions of the obsolete 1939 Act, there is nothing to be gained by pursuing the matter further.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 14.
This Amendment refers to Regulation 22 which is concerned with the wartime powers of billeting people upon other householders. The matter has been frequently referred to, and it is not my desire at this late hour to detain the Committee by repeating arguments which are familiar to them, but I think it might be of some assistance if I were to summarise what I conceive the position to be. This question of billeting by compulsion persons upon the households of other persons has always been a very sore point with our democratic and freedom-loving people. In the struggles which established the present position of Parliament in our Constitution it was one of the major grievances against the King that the power of billeting was used in an oppressive manner by the Crown to inflict hardship and, therefore, to punish persons whose views were distasteful to


the Crown. It was after a long constitutional struggle that the power to billet in time of war, and in certain cases in time of peace, was hedged about with very strict legislative safeguards and with every provision for compensation and payment of charges in proper cases.
During the war there was a sudden removal of masses of the population from one area to another, and in the time that. was available under the stress of war it was impossible to arrange by contract suitable accommodation for those people. That being the circumstance of the time, these wide powers of compulsory billeting were taken. It was always obvious that among the many grievances of war this was one, and the chief sufferers from compulsory billeting were the housewives. When, added to their daily task of looking after their own menfolk, they have to cook, wash linen, make beds and look after strangers who are thrust into their homes, it is only with a sense of profound loyalty and public service that they put up with this added labour and intrusion. I think in these days of peace we should review this matter again. Surely, it should be our duty in this Committee to protect the homes of the people from this sort of invasion and intrusion? This exordium may be a little thunderous for the purposes that remain in this Bill, but I think it is wise for us to have the background of these provisions in our minds when considering their particular application at the present time.
8.45 p.m.
In the Debates on this subject last year, and again this year on the Second Reading of the Bill, the argument was advanced that it was desired to maintain this Regulation 22 simply to give validity to the remaining cases in which it was necessary to billet people at the present time; and two categories of persons were mentioned, first the civil servants who had been extruded from the Metropolis and not yet reabsorbed, and certain young persons who were the victims of war and who had to be cared for by local authorities in various places. I should have thought that two years after the war ended would have been long enough for us to find accommodation for all the civil servants and the children by peaceful means without compulsory billeting. The prospect that this regulation holds out to us of a

continuance of these abnormal powers—these extra-constitutional powers—until the end of 1950 is one that must be appalling to the people of this country. Surely, it cannot be considered by the Government that a few outlying cases—the driftwood cast up on the beach by the storms of war—are sufficient justification to retain in their entirety these immense powers. This is not the way to deal with a temporary situation, such as this, which is, we are told, all that it amounts to.
I should be the first to agree that the "difficulties of war must be dealt with by both sides of the Committee in a reasonable manner having regard to the actual facts of the situation. I say, however, that it is not necessary for the Government to retain in days of peace these wide powers in order to deal with cases, be they of children or of civil servants, which arose out of the last war, which ended two years ago. I hope we shall get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman which will enable us together to come to some solution of this difficulty. I ask him, therefore, if he will tell us the extent of this problem of billeting civil servants and children. Can he give us any idea how many children still remain, for whom it is impossible to find accommodation without his arming himself with these very great compulsory billeting powers? Will he tell us, too, what is the position as regards the civil servants and the provision of accommodation for them? I understood many of them were coming back to London, and that the necessity for the compulsory billeting of them was, a least, a declining necessity. What is the extent of that problem? Is there any way in which we may solve it without arming the Government with a continuance of these powers? We shall be ready to consider anything to meet the actual difficulty that does exist, but I say that, taking a steam hammer to crack a nut—

Mr. Gallacher: We need a steam hammer to crack the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison: —is a very trite method of finishing a temporary and vanishing problem.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman labours under a disadvantage—a disadvantage not merely political, for that is


shared by his hon. Friends behind him—but the disadvantage that he was not present when a colleague of his spoke on an earlier Amendment tonight which was directly relevant to this one. His hon. Friend withdrew the Amendment after the explanation which I gave. The right hon. Gentleman has launched a frail barge to carry a very heavy cargo. He has made a terrific attack upon these powers, but the right hon. Gentleman should have tried to show that these extensive powers have been improperly used. The full powers are needed in a few, and a dwindling number of cases. That is the difficulty all the while. What hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should do is to try to show, first, that the powers are unnecessary; and, secondly, that if they are possessed by the Government, they are being used to an unnecessary and vexatious extent. Now, they have not proved the first point. The right hon. Gentleman, surely, allowed himself to use very improper language when he talked about the victims of war bombing as "driftwood"?

Mr. Gallacher: He will find plenty of driftwood at Claridge's Hotel.

Mr. Bevan: I explained earlier—and his hon. and learned Friend accepted the explanation and withdrew his Amendment—that at the present time there are large numbers of children in this country who were evacuated.

Mr. Osborne: How many now?

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the hon. Member would permit me to make my speech in my own way. Those children were evacuated during the war, and the point was put to me, quite properly, by his hon. and learned Friend, that surely the time had come when those children should now have been restored to their former homes. That is a perfectly proper point. But a large number of the children who were evacuated were orphaned when they were away. They are the "driftwood" that we have to look after—2,500 of them.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make a point of prejudice over a perfectly proper simile. I said that these remaining cases were the driftwood of the tempest of war. I used it in no derogatory sense in speaking of

these victims of war. I hope that, in fairness, the right hon. Gentleman will refrain from crediting me with any desire to be in any way harsh towards, or to underestimate the sufferings of, these people. It was a perfectly proper simile.

Mr. Bevan: I am within the recollection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman did load his argument with many generalisations about interference with the liberty of the people, about the unpleasant character of billeting people at the present time, and about people resenting having others billeted upon them. The fact of the matter is that a very large number of those people upon whom evacuees were billeted never felt the stroke of a bomb, and, so far from regarding themselves as the victims of war, very many of them were delighted to have children from war-damaged areas billeted upon them.

Mr. Morrison: Of course they were, and gave them a welcome.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman now suggests that they were the victims. We have to find places for these children—2,500 of them. We are still their guardians, and the Government propose to remain their guardians until proper authorities can take charge of them. We are making preparations, and before very long my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept guardianship of these deprived children under special legislation. Furthermore, when the National Assistance Bill has been carried into law, every assistance will be given to people who have been injured and who require domestic care. Therefore, we are bound to have these powers until those two Bills have assimilated the problem. Also, there are 150 nurses who are billeted at the present time, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think rather more about what might happen to the patients if those nurses were not there, and to the persons upon whom the nurses are billeted—because they are paid. In addition, there are some civil servants still evacuated.

Sir W. Darling: How many of them?

Mr. Bevan: About 1,700. Every Member in the Committee knows very well that we have lost an enormous amount of property in London. Indeed, it has been the policy of the Government—and I should have thought this would have the support of the Opposition—as far as


possible, to bring about dispersal of the Civil Service into the Provinces. Therefore, we have to retain the powers of billeting for a while, but their use is diminishing as the problem recedes. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest, within a very short time after such destruction as we have suffered, that it is possible for us to give up these powers immediately. They have not shown that the powers are being improperly or too extensively operated, but what they have tried to do is to make the maximum political prejudice out of the situation.

Mr. Frank Byers: I agree with what the Minister has said about the necessity for billeting powers, and I was very glad to hear that this was a diminishing problem, and that he wanted these powers for only a short time. I merely rise for an assurance. If I were working a system of direction of labour, as the Minister of Labour is doing, I should require very strong powers for billeting. There will be movement involved, and there will be the obligation, having given a man a direction, upon the Minister of Health to find somewhere for him to reside. I should like an assurance, because the Minister of Health is the Minister responsible for billeting, that this is in fact a diminishing problem, and that these powers are not being retained because the Government are retaining the powers of direction of labour.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, it is not proposed to use these powers for this purpose.

Mr. Byers: In that case, is it the intention to direct people and not to find them accommodation?

Mr. Bevan: That is a different issue entirely.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I thought that the Minister's indignation was really rather excessive, and I do not think he himself would consider his constitutional doctrine to be maintainable, in a more thoughtful moment. He told us that it was the duty of the Opposition to show that the powers whose continuation hon. Members desire are unnecessary; but surely that cannot be the right view. It cannot be the right view to take that the Executive ought to have all the powers, even those which, on the Executive's own showing are much greater than

they directly or immediately need, unless such powers can be shown to be unnecessary. That is an exact reversal of the onus of proof which has always been taken in these matters, I will not say only in this country, but in every other country which has the happiness of constitutional government. The Minister explained to us that there were 4,000 persons for whom the Government are at present responsible. I think I am getting the arithmetic right—

Sir W. Darling: 2,500.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think I am getting my arithmetic right, in saying that it is something under. 01 per cent. of the whole population for whom the Government are responsible, as the right hon. Gentleman said, until the proper authority can take charge. Does he really mean to tell us, that in order to make sure of the lodging of that very small number of people, it really is necessary to have absolutely unlimited powers of compulsory billeting; because this really is an unlimited power of billeting. And billeting can be a really serious grievance.
I hate to intrude personal experiences, but in my own house, since before the war began, my wife offered a part of the house, and from that day to this day there have always been one or two or three strangers living in it without any compulsion at all. However good they are, and however well they behave and all the rest of it, that is really a very heavy additional tax, which does not appear in the financial returns of His Majesty's lieges and compulsory billeting is very different from yielding to what appears to you to be a patriotic or benevolent case for sheltering one or more persons in your house. Can the right hon. Gentleman say for what proportion of these 4,000 people it is now necessary to use compulsion, what proportion of this 4,000 would he apart from compulsion, be left with on his hands? That is his problem, it is in order to deal with that small number, not the whole 4,000 but such portion of the 4,000 as could not be got in either by reasonable commercial bargaining or by appealing to people's willingness to help, it is in order that those few people should be accommodated that the Minister is asking for unlimited billeting powers until 1950.
We have it on high authority that there will be no housing problem by the time


we come to the next General Election. I do not know when that will be; it cannot be later than 1950 and if the housing problem is so fast tapering off, indeed ending so rapidly, that it will not be here when we have the next General Election, is it absolutely necessary to retain absolutely unlimited powers of billeting and to rely on the assurance of the Minister that it is to be used only for a few orphans? That is the argument which has been put to the Committee. I ask the Committee to believe that that argument ought not to be taken seriously and that the indignation with which it was presented is an outrage on the intelligence of this Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If any justification were needed for this Amendment, it could be found in the Minister's attitude. He is asking in this Bill for enormous powers, powers which might have been necessary in wartime, and were then only very jealously given. He has sought to justify these powers by suggesting he was entitled to them unless we could show that they were improperly used. That is really intolerable. No House of Commons worth its salt will give a Minister sweeping powers unless and until that Minister has made in perfectly clear there is a real necessity for them.
Whatever the Minister may say, the powers are powers which strike at the heart of the domestic life of this country. They entitle the Minister, by force of law, to intrude into any household any person whom he may select. That household has, under penalty, not only to accommodate but to feed the people imposed on them. That power is one that cannot be given by any self-respecting House of Commons to any Minister without really serious argument being put forward as to its need. The only argument the Minister used was the need to accommodate 2,500 evacuee orphans. Is it beyond the capacity of the Minister and his Department to arrange for the accommodation of 2,500 children without taking billeting powers over the whole United Kingdom? Is there any more undesirable method of accommodating children than by compulsory billeting? If the Minister had any idea of the resentment which is caused by compulsory billeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—I ask hon. Members who interrupt, to contemplate their own reaction to compulsory billeting in their own houses.

Major Bruce: We have had some.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely orphan children should be the last people to be exposed to compulsory entry into other people's houses. Members who have any knowledge of the problem of dealing with orphans know that before the war arrangements were made for thousands of children to be accommodated without any compulsory powers being used at all. They were made by mutual agreement, they were made by free arrangement, and the foster parents welcomed them. Will any Member suggest that it is better, when dealing with the accommodation of children, to use compulsion rather than voluntary means? Is it suggested that a problem which before the war Ministers could solve without any difficulty, that of arranging foster parents by voluntary agreement, is beyond the power of the right hon. Gentleman, with his persuasive tongue? I have said and thought many things against the right hon. Gentleman's capacity, but at least I have never suggested that. It is no use Members opposite indicating indignation, unless it is that they are so fond of compulsion that they like to expose even children to it. Surely, compulsory billeting is the wrong method of dealing with the accommodation of children. That is the only argument which has been adduced by the Minister in support of his claim to be given powers of compulsory billeting for the next three years. An argument such as that is really an insult to the Committee, and the only answer to it can be given in the Lobby.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like the Minister of Health to deal with one or two other points when he replies. He tells us that this is a diminishing problem. Well, we have had some experience of change of policy by this Government in the use of Defence Regulations. We understood that when Regulation 58A was continued this Government regarded the direction of labour—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now getting outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Reid: I was trying to point out that there is every possibility of just such a change of front with regard to billeting. Observe the problem. The Minister cannot build houses. There are hundreds of


thousands of people, and more coming along every day, who want accommodation. There is the problem of directing labour from one part of the country to another. Will he tell us at least this: that so long as he is a member of the Government, under no circumstances will this regulation be used for any further class of persons beyond those for whom. it is used at the moment? I realise that one of the main objections to having vast powers of this sort on the Statute Book is that governments may change, or change their policies. The result is that Ministerial assurances have no permanent validity.
The least I can ask the right hon. Gentleman to do, therefore, is to promise this Committee that he will not remain a Member of any Government which uses this regulation for any new class of billeting. If he will do that, he will have done all he can do, short of withdrawing this regulation. [Laughter.] It is no good Members opposite laughing; that is implicit in what he said, but it is not yet explicit. Let the right hon. Gentleman make it explicit. Members sitting behind him seem to think it rather a game to get regulations through this House, and then use them for quite different purposes This is a game which they have played once, but they are not going to be allowed to play again. I do not think they have yet realised that there are people in this country who regard a change of front of that kind as something approaching the discreditable. I should have thought that they would have been very willing to try to avoid further discredit in the use of this power.
Will the right hon. Gentleman observe what he is taking power to do, and what any change of front of this Government, or any other Government, may bring into full operation tomorrow?—and as the crisis deepens there is every temptation to do it. He can require any person—subject to rights of appeal, it is true, but they are very limited—to give accommodation to any person, adult or child, and not only accommodation but also food and attendance. Accommodation, food and attendance may be forced as a duty on any householder in this country with regard to any spiv or drone who is directed into labour. That is what the right hon. Gentleman

asks power to do. Does he say that that is a power which this Committee ought to give to any Government?
Why not limit this order to those purposes for which he requires it? That would be a proper way of legislation, unless the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that he appears to do—I hope that he does not—that the Government ought to have unlimited power, and that power ought only to be taken away from them in circumstances where it can be proved that it could only be wanted in a single case throughout the United Kingdom. That is a complete reversion of constitutional theory and a complete denial of what we understand by freedom. The question of children has come up. The right hon. Gentleman himself said an hour or two ago that responsibility for the children was to be taken over this year.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say this year.

Mr. Reid: Well, before the end of 1948—this Session—and he did not require the other Defence Regulation which specifically deals with children beyond the end of 1948. Why then does he want this regulation to deal with children for a further period beyond that for which the other regulation is required? If there is any reality in this scheme which is to be brought forward, that the children are to be managed under some other scheme before the end of 1948, then the whole of those 2,500 children go right out of the sphere of this regulation before the end of 1948. The prolongation for a further two years to 1950 is not required for the children. That is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said one-and-a-half hours ago. Perhaps he will explain why that is necessary?
The only other people are nurses and civil servants. Is it really suggested that these enormous powers are required—he is taking over, after all, full responsibility next year for the whole of the hospital services and for most of the services with regard to nurses—to get nurses into the proper places in the country? Is it really suggested that this problem of billeting civil servants cannot be solved for another three years? I wonder what the civil servants will think when they hear that for another three years it is necessary to keep powers of compulsory billeting, because they will not have any homes of their own. I see the Financial Secretary


here. I wonder how the civil servants feel about the way their new masters are treating them, and the prospects held out to them of compulsory billeting for another three years? This Defence Regulation is, I think, the most stringent regulation in the Bill if it is used, as it can be used, for the purpose expressed in the regulation. Why cannot it be amended, if it is wanted at all? It would not be difficult to amend it on the lines on which the right hon. Gentleman has said he wanted it. It would be perfectly easy and there would be no difficulty. So long as we have a Government which, tumbling into ever-deepening crises, change their mind and use Defence Regulations for purposes for which a few months before they said they would never use them, we must be careful. We cannot afford to put powers of that sort into the hands of this Government.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: Many of the hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite were not in the Committee at all for most of the evening. In fact, so much importance did the party opposite attach to many of these regulations, which they call important, that there were not more than three or four Members on the opposite Benches.

Mr. Pickthorn: And the same on the other side.

Mr. Bevan: There were twice as many here. In fact, the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who spoke with such synthetic indignation a moment or two ago, has only been in the Committee a very short time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose—

Mr. Bevan: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for a right hon. Gentleman to make a direct personal and inaccurate attack upon an hon. Member, and when that hon. Member desires to correct him on a question of fact, decline to give way?

The Chairman: Whether he gives way or not is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman himself. We are in Committee and the hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity later to reply if he wants to.
It will be within the recollection of my hon. Friends here—

Mr. Bevan: I said that the hon. Member had been in the Committee very little.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to be fair to my hon. Friend, who has given this matter almost constant attention and if the right hon. Gentleman looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see the number of topics on which my hon. Friend has addressed the Committee.

The Chairman: In any event this discussion has very little relation to the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: I will at once admit that the hon. Member was present in the Committee far more than his hon. Friends—

Colonel Dower: And more than the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: —because very few of them were here. That was my justification for referring to his synthetic indignation, because if hon. Members attach such improtance to these powers and become so indignant in five minutes about one, it would be expected that their attention would be more assiduous. The fact is that hon. Members opposite have on several occasions this evening found that what they thought were barbs had blunt points, and that they were not pulling up matters that they thought they were pulling up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was quite usual for Governments to get powers for some reasons and use them for others.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This Government.

Mr. Bevan: If there are any British Governments that have had powers for certain reasons and used them for opposite reasons, it is the Governments of the Tory Party. In the whole of our experience they got power by lie after lie, and, in fact, it is very well known to everybody today that in the art of deceiving the public to obtain power, the Conservative Party have been pastmasters.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Lie after lie.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan): Here is somebody else who has just come in.

Mr. Bevan: There is another right hon. Gentleman who has fluttered over the political scene with faithless love for the past 20 years. I warn his hon. Friends not to attach too much importance to his fealty, because he has deserted on more than one occasion.

Mr. Maemillan: Lie after lie.

Mr. Bevan: It is correct. He said it, on more than one occasion, and the consequence is—

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of Order. Can we have some argument which is related to the Amendment?

Mr. Bevan: The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that they cannot take it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to insist that I should enter into a contract with my right hon. Friends who are Members of the Cabinet and say that I would remain in the Government only upon certain assumptions. I certainly am saying that it is not the intention of the Government—

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: At present—

Mr. Bevan: —to use the powers. No Government can ever talk about hypothetical situations. Of course they cannot. No Government ever can, and a Government ought never to be asked what it would do in a certain set of hypothetical circumstances. What we are saying—and hon. Gentlemen must remember that what is under consideration at the moment are powers conferred upon the Coalition Government—

Mr. Pickthorn: It was before.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) would restrain himself for a moment, and only for a moment—we know he cannot do it for more than a moment—

Mr. Pickthorn: Who cannot take it?

Mr. Bevan: These powers were conferred upon a Coalition Government in war time, and are being exercised to a decreasing extent, to the extent that the problem itself is decreasing. Indeed, I think I am entitled to say that my own view about billeting and about the obnoxious character of unnecessary billeting, can surely be demonstrated by the fact that, even in the worst period immediately after the end of the war, when

men and women were being demobilised people all over the country to take them in hundreds of thousands, in millions, from the Forces, we did not use these powers for billeting. [Interruption.] I say that we did not use them although we were in very difficult circumstances. In fact, in 1945, so far from using these powers, which were alive, far more alive than they are now—

Colonel Dower: Why have the powers?

Mr. Bevan: We never used them, because everyone in this country recognises that there is nothing which causes more resentment and domestic disturbance than imposing one family or one person upon another.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when we demobilised, I think it was, more than four million people, not one of them was directed, and that now they are going to be directed. Can the right hon. Gentleman work industrial conscription without the power of billeting?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is becoming obsessed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite rightly."] We are not dealing at the moment with industrial conscription. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is part of it."] It does not exist, except in the perfervid imagination of the hon. Gentleman. There is only one way in which to test the bona fides of a Government or a Minister when they ask for certain powers, and that is to examine how they have used them in stressful conditions. These were not used by me in 1945 or 1946. They were not even used last year when there were very distressful conditions in London, and they are not even being used now when there are thousands of families in London living in very bad conditions. We appealed in 1945 and 1946 for families to share their homes with returning ex-Service men. In that appeal we got no assistance whatsoever from anybody on the other side of the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman and one of his hon. Friends asked why we could not get foster fathers and mothers for these 2,500 children, and why we should not hawk them around the country and try to persuade people to take them in. Has anyone for a moment faced the administrative consequences of taking these 2,500


children around and trying to persuade in temporarily, not permanently, as foster children. That would mean 2,500 separate homes spread everywhere and an army of inspectors to find out what was happening to the children. The hon. Member who spoke so indignantly does not appreciate the nature of the problem. There are 30,000 deprived children in Great Britain, of whom many are put out into homes as foster children. Why did we have the Curtis Report? We had it because we found that it was impossible to provide sufficient trained inspectors to see how the children were being used. The reason why I am angry is that hon. Members opposite, anxious to make political capital, would sacrifice the welfare of these war orphans merely in order to score a political point. [Interruption.] That is what is behind it. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment: Does he agree with his hon. Friend that the way to provide for these 2,500 children is for Ministry of Health inspectors to take them from place to place, street to street and home to home until people will take them in?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not think any hon. Friend of mine ever made that suggestion.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, yes, he did. That was the only constructive point, if it can be called a constructive point, in the speech of the hon. Member. That is exactly what he said. He went on to underline it and said that before the war it was a normal thing to put children out.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Morrison indicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: That is exactly what he said. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to repudiate his over-enthusiastic follower, he may do so. That is exactly what the hon. Member said, and that is what I am resisting. I say that until it is possible for us to create proper homes for these children—

Mr. Morrison: How long will that be?

Mr. Bevan: Much shorter than it would be if hon. Members opposite had the job. While it is perfectly true that the party opposite did not embark on billeting before the war, they starved whole populations out and made them move to other areas. If hon. Members want to know what it means to force people away from their own homes into the homes of other

people, let them read the reports on Dagenham, Slough and Hayes between the war years as a result of their driving Welshmen, Scotsmen and men from Durham to live in the South and South East of England.

Mr. Gallacher: Hundreds of thousands of them.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: One thing that annoys me is to hear the humbug from the Opposition. We have therefore decided that these children are the wards of the Government, and that they are to be kept in circumstances in which they can be properly looked after until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can assume their guardianship and build proper homes, in which they can be properly supervised.
I have been asked about civil servants who are being billeted. They are being billeted in definite places in definite towns. We know that if every civil servant had to make voluntary arrangements in constricted circumstances the result would be that they would be fleeced, and the Government would be fleeced. At the moment, the arrangements made are not resented, but if we entered into voluntary arrangements in a definite number of places, we would be handing helpless civil servants over to householders to be fleeced. We will not do that. These are powers which we require at the present time and insist upon obtaining, because not to do so would be a dereliction of the Government's duty.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I rise for one purpose only, and that is to reply to the personal attack which the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to launch upon me. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that such indignation as I might have displayed in my last speech was synthetic because I had not in fact been very much present during the discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill. I will merely put the Committee in possession of the facts, and leave it there. Discussion of the Committee stage of this Bill began shortly after seven o'clock yesterday evening. From that period, until the beginning of the Adjournment, a little after 11 o'clock, I was in my place, with the exception of five minutes. This afternoon discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill began


approximately at a quarter to four. I was in my place then, and continuously from then until between 25 minutes past and half past seven. I was back in my place a little before half past eight. Those are the facts. Whether those figures compare favourably or unfavourably with the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not altogether care, but I think it is right, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that these facts should be on record, and that the right hon. Gentleman should, in face of those facts, have the opportunity of withdrawing the observations he made.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose—

The Chairman (Major Milner): The Chairman (Major Milner) rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: Sir John Mellor.

Sir J. Mellor: I apologise if I did not sit down immediately you rose, Sir. I did not rise to continue the Debate, but to express the greatest disgust at the conduct of the Minister.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order—

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. Gallacher: Is there anything in the Amendment to entitle the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) to refer to "disgust"?

The Chairman: Order. I shall have to order the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to leave the Chamber if he does not restrain himself.

Mr. Gallacher: What is an "expression of disgust"?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) was not addressing himself to the Amendment. If he wishes to do so, I will call him.

Sir J. Mellor: I think I am entitled to suggest that the arrogant way in which the Minister of Health has treated the Committee—[Interruption].

The Chairman: Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee must permit me to conduct the Debate. They should allow any hon. Member on either side to say what he has to say, and give the Chair the opportunity of hearing him.

Sir J. Mellor: I was protesting against the arrogant way in which the Minister of Health has treated the Committee throughout the Debate upon this Amendment. After my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has stated the facts and asked for a withdrawal, the Minister refuses to accord with the custom and decency of this House and to rise in his place and make apology or withdrawal. I think that this Committee will part with this Amendment on a Division in which we shall express not only our view on the terms of the Amendment but also our view on the conduct of the Minister of Health.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 89.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[9.37 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Blackburn, A. R.
Daggar, G.


Allan, A C. (Bosworth)
Blyton, W. R.
Daines, P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bramall, E. A.
Deer, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attewell, H. C
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Delargy, H. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Diamond, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Burden, T. W.
Dobbie, W


Ayles, W. H
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Callaghan, James
Donovan, T.


Bacon, Mist A.
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Baird, J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Balfour, A.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Barstow, P. G.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Barton, C.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Berry, H.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Beswick, F
Corlett, Dr. J.
Farthing, W. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Corvedale, Viscount
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Crawley, A.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington. E.)




Follick, M.
McAdam, W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McAllister, G.
Royle, C.


Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Sharp, Granville


Gibson, C. W.
McGovern, J.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Gilzean, A.
Mack, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Goodrich, H. E.
McKinlay, A. S.
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Skinnard, F. W.


Grierson, E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Medland, H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Swingler, S.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hale, Leslie
Morley, R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Herbison, Miss M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hicks, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tiffany, S.


Holman, P.
O'Brien, T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paget, R. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


House, G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hoy, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pargiter, G. A.
Walker, G. H.


Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hughes H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pearson, A.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearl, T. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Janner, B.
Perrins, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jay, D. P. T.
Piratin, P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Keenan, W
Proctor, W. T.
Willis, E.


Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Key, C. W.
Randall, H. E
Woods, G. S.


King, E. M.
Ranger, J
Wyatt, W.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Leslie, J. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)



Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, A.
Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.


Lyne, A. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bower, N.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Osborne, C.


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Byers, Frank
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K.


Carson, E.
Hurd, A.
Pitman, I. J.


Challen, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Jennings, R.
Rayner, 'Brig. R


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Digby, S. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maude, J. C.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Mr. Drew and Mr. Studholme.


Question put and agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 19 to 22.
After the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the last Amendment, it is, perhaps, hardly inappropriate that we should now consider a Defence Regulation dealing with persons of unsound mind. I hope that we shall, perhaps, have a calmer and "more informative answer to the questions which I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this regulation. For some reason, this regulation is included among the number carried on until 1950, while the rather similar Regulation 32, with regard to hospitals and ambulances, is only carried on until 31st December, 1948. When we asked the right hon. Gentleman for information about Regulation 32, he gave it quietly, calmly, and with a touch of conviction which was absent from his recent orations. I hope that in telling us why he wants Regulation 32A—that dealing with the transfer of persons of unsound mind and mental defectives—to remain until 1950, he will tell us the size of the problem with which he has to deal, and the particular reasons for such a lengthy retention. I expect that if he were only willing to admit it, the real reason for its retention is his failure to erect buildings.

Mr. Bevan: The Committee will have noticed with what restraint the hon. and learned Gentleman refrained from trailing his coat till the end of his last sentence. The reason for retaining this particular regulation is quite clear. During the war, a number of patients had to be removed from mental institutions to other buildings. Under the lunacy laws, when a person is detained, he must be detained in an identified and mentioned institution. Therefore, if he is removed to another place, that place also has to be designated and identified. It is not, in fact, only the mental patient himself who has to be certified; it is the place where he is detained that has to be certified and has to be brought under regulation. It was necessary, as I have said, to transfer a number of patients from mental institutions, which had been identified for that purpose, to other institutions and to other buildings. Many of the buildings from which they went were heavily damaged, very old, and cannot be repaired, and, as the hon. and learned Member said, new

buildings will not be erected for some time. It is impossible for us to repair within two and a half years all the ravages of 50 years' neglect.
There are also a number of other institutions which were privately licensed homes. There are about 50 altogether. They are subject to the same difficulties and the same legal limitations. They have had to be taken from where they were to other places, and in those other places they have to be protected. It is impossible to restore them to where they were. Therefore, this regulation is not on all fours with the other regulation to which the hon. and learned Member referred, because, in those cases, all the services are being assimilated into the National Health Service Act. But in the cases under this particular regulation it will very often be found that they are not going to be assimilated in that way, and, therefore, this regulation is necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 26 and 27.
These Regulations 42C and 42CA, deal with war-time regulations which were made with regard to the closing of undesirable premises, on the one hand, and unlawful gaming parties on the other. I do not intend in general to dispute the fact that some control of these places is necessary on the lines of the regulations in the meantime. The doubt I feel about Regulation 42C is that
A chief officer of police of any district … if so authorised either generally or specially by the Secretary of State, may, if he is satisfied …
of certain conditions enter premises and carry on with his work. I move this Amendment only in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in a position to furnish the information, whether he has any expectation of permanent legislation on these matters, because it is an undesirable thing that these police regulations should continue to hover in this suspended fashion, not completely clothed with the statutory authority of law, and yet in force. If he can give me any assurance, I shall be much obliged to him.

Mr. Gallacher: At a time like this, these regulations are especially necessary. When we have a crisis such as we have, and black marketeers making


quick and easy money, it is quite obvious that there are all kinds of undesirable premises and undesirable gaming. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he took over that position, which should still be in the hands of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), told us on the radio that we should organise parties and play games. He certainly did not mean the games that are referred to in this regulation and the Minister should have all power to stop the practices that flow from the black marketeering that is going on at the present time.

Mr. Ede: The question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me referred to the first of the two orders that he proposes to leave out by this Amendment. With regard to undesirable premises, the only police officer who has been given general power is the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Outside the Metropolis the chief constable of the district has to make his application to me in each case, and the Chief Constable of my own constituency has made certain applications to me with regard to this matter. This is the kind of power that is required in seaport towns, and I hope that it may be possible to introduce permanent legislation. I am quite sure the Committee would not expect me tonight to indicate any precise date. It is one of the matters with which I hope to deal on a suitable occasion, because I agree that this matter should be embodied in permanent legislation. It so impinges on the liberty of the subject that it is desirable that the House should have the opportunity, before permanent legislation is enacted, or this matter is continued much longer, to have a chance of having the matter before it fully and in detail.
The same thing applies to the Gaming Acts. They badly need consolidation. I would not undertake to attempt to do it in Committee of the whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] There would be too many experts about. I hope to be able to have that matter also dealt with generally, but there can be no doubt that at the moment, with the temptations which exist, it is desirable that this power should be continued. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members will know that there was a very bad case a few weeks ago in an apparently quite

respectable mansion just off the Guildford-Godalming by-pass road. I am happy to say that most of the people who seem to engage in this activity are not British citizens.

Mr. Molson: British subjects?

Mr. Ede: I do not want to go into considerable refinements. I hope that it may be possible to deal with this matter again, but I ask that the powers should be continued for the present. It is gratifying to find that as far as gaming parties are concerned, the number of persons found guilty has fallen from 265 in 1946 to 168 this year. On the first of these regulations, I would say that every conviction has been upheld. There have been appeals. I think that indicates that the use made by the police of these powers has been justified, and I hope the Committee will not think it necessary to remove these two regulations from the Schedule.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out line 43.
I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of elucidation. Page 9, line 43, appears to refer to Regulation 86 with regard to the removal of offices, etc. In the Defence Regulations there is no Regulation 86 at all. It seems to jump from Regulation 85 to 87. Number 86 is a complete blank. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going to the pains of seeking to extend for another three years a regulation which, according to his own publication, does not exist, is I think a circumstance sufficiently mysterious to warrant elucidation. It is with that object in mind that I am moving this Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I must confess that I shared the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety when I looked at the 1946 edition of the Defence Regulations. But I went back to the 15th Edition of 24th March 1944, to find out what it was all about and, having made considerable research, the position seems to be that the power to make orders


under this regulation was revoked by an Order in Council dated 9th May, 1945. But in the 1946 Act, what I think is technically known as a saving provision was included to safeguard existing orders made under the regulation for the removal of offices established by Statute. I do not want to rely upon that technicality. In a sentence, the reason I would ask the Committee to grant this particular power is for the purpose of maintaining the general register of shipping and seamen down in my constituency at Cardiff. It is an office which is required by Statute to be kept in London. At the beginning of the war, under this defence regulation it was removed to Cardiff where it still is. It is' functioning very well, I understand, in a very good city, indeed. Most of the staff have no desire to come back to London. It is desirable, until we can amend Section 251 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that we should be given this saving, in order that we may continue to have the office down there in these times.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It is very desirable to maintain this office at Cardiff, but is it the intention to reprint Regulation 86?

Mr. Ede: No.

Mr. Molson: I am afraid I cannot quite understand the whole of the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. The present edition of the Defence Regulations is described as containing regulations
printed as in force on 24th February, 1946.
The volume was prepared in the office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Treasury. Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport tell us plainly and explicitly whether we are to understand that this is the definitive issue of the regulations which are in force? The beginning of the prefatory note says:
The Defence Regulations included in this volume are those which remain in force.
Are we to understand that there are other regulations which remain in force and are not printed here?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not quite clear on another point. Perhaps the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport can enlighten me. The Schedule itself in which appears this entry we are questioning describes Regulation 86 as one of the
Defence Regulations continued in force until Tenth of December, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty.
As I understood the Parliamentary Secretary's observations, they came to this, that although Defence Regulation 86 had been revoked, certain orders made under it were saved by a provision of the Act of 1946. That being so, is it not a trifle misleading to put into this Schedule as a Defence Regulation in force and to be maintained in force until 10th December, 1950, a Defence Regulation which the Parliamentary Secretary has already told the Committee was revoked some little time ago? It does lead—and would lead anybody reading this Schedule by itself—to the belief that a regulation is in force which, in fact, has been revoked. I see the practical point involved. Perhaps, however, before the Report stage, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport could devise a method of doing what he wants to do without leaving, apparently, a corpse in the Book of Life.

Mr. Ede: The 1946 Act revoked, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said, Regulation 86, but in the third column of the First Schedule, under the heading, "Exception, limitation or modification." there were inserted the words:
The saving for orders made under the Regulation shall continue in force.
I agree that this drafting that we have now in front of us is misleading, and may lead people to believe that the whole of the regulation has been revived. Of course, there is no power in this Bill to revive any revoked regulation. I shall endeavour to see, between now and the Report stage, if it is possible to find a way of making quite clear on the face of the Bill the limited extent to which the orders made under the regulation have been saved. I hope that will satisfy the Committee.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I cannot say that the whole of this mysterious matter is perfectly clear. However, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to. the Ministry of Transport have


not succeeded in producing illumination, at least they have made darkness visible. Inevitably, there is something here to be cleared up. I am quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will endeavour to clear it up between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 9, line 47, to leave out "eighty-nine," and to insert "ninety."
Regulation 89 has been continued in the previous line, line 46, and we do not desire this system of double entry to continue. Therefore, by leaving out "eighty-nine" in line 47, we start the succession of regulations, which are continued in line 47, at the correct number.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, to leave out "two."
The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a small drafting error. The Regulation 2 referred to has already been revoked by Order in Council in October, 1946, under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1946.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 15, line 4, to leave out subhead (a).
I think the Committee will agree it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in page 15, line 8, to leave out from "complainant," to the end of line 11. Reading through pages 14 and 15 of the Bill, one sees the procedure now for transferring the hearing of complaints from one court to another court. No doubt the machinery worked fairly well during wartime, and was well tested. The only point on which I am not clear, and on which I should like elucidation, is the necessity for stipulating that the complainant must, before his or her complaint is heard, give written particulars of the nature of the evidence by which it is proposed to support the complaint, and also the names, addresses and occupations of the witnesses. That seems a rather unnecessary bit of form filling. It is in addition to the

usual procedure when a person takes out a summons, and I should like to know whether it serves any useful purpose. If it does not, it might just as well be cut out. It means that the complainant has to collect a good deal of information, and do a good deal of writing first.

Mr. Younger: If this Amendment were accepted, the only information which it would be necessary to supply for the purposes of this provision would be the occupations of the complainant and defendant, the address of the complainant, and the last address of the defendant known to the complainant, but nothing as regards the nature of the evidence or the witnesses to be called. The whole purpose of this provision is to enable the court—and I emphasise that it is the court which takes the decision—to decide which is the most convenient place in which the hearing should be held. It is clear that if there were witnesses other than the complainant and defendant it would be a very relevant factor to know where the witnesses lived. If the complainant lives in one area and the defendant lives in another, it is, so to speak, fifty-fifty as to which court is decided on as the venue for the hearing. But it is relevant to know what other witnesses there may be, and in which court it would be most convenient for them to attend. I think that is the only point in this. The matter is left to the court, and I am sure we can rely upon the court not to use this provision in any oppressive way by insisting on unduly detailed evidence. This enables the court to make up its mind in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thank the Under-Secretary for that explanation, and, having received it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

Orders of the Day — JERSEY AND GUERNSEY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to payments to the States of Jersey and Guernsey, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums equal to any sums paid into


the Exchequer on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, on account of hereditary revenues of the Crown which have accrued in the island of Jersey or the island of Guernsey (including the island of Jethou) for payment to the States of Jersey or the States of Guernsey, as the case may be.

Orders of the Day — JERSEY AND GUERNSEY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BUDGET DISCLOSURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of Budget information by Mr. Dalton, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Wednesday 12th November:
That Mr. Alexander Anderson, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Donovan, Major Sir Thomas Dugdale, Mr. Hale, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Manningham-Buller, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Peake, Mr. Oliver Poole, Mr. Proctor, Mr. Sydney Silverman and Mr. Maurice Webb be Members of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
That Five be the Quorum."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not think it possible for this Motion to be passed without comment, and without the proposal being made that it should be rejected. I consider as shameful the way this matter has been treated, and the attitude which has been adopted in regard to a mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). The Prime Minister said the other day that there is nothing to reveal and nothing to conceal. If that is the case, and I am certain it is the case, what is the necessity for this Motion? Everyone knows the character of the mistake which was made. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke to the journalist concerned, was quite certain in his own mind that it was impossible for the matter to reach the streets before he made his speech. That was the mistake. He made a frank and manly statement in this House in regard to his mistake, and it was accepted by the House and by the Leader of the

Opposition. It was a shock to all of us to discover that the matter had taken such a course, but I consider it is very undesirable to carry it still further. I am definitely of the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman should not have given up his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the mistake he made. I want to put on record my very strong objections to this Motion.

10.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I hope the House will pass this Motion. There have been negotiations as to its exact form, and I think that if it is passed in this form it will enable the matter to be closed on a satisfactory basis when the report has been considered by the House. It is the wish of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) that this inquiry should take place. I did hear one day recently, when this matter was again raised in the House, that there were certain rumours in circulation. I have not heard them myself, but I know rumours can be very easily circulated in this House, because only a day or two ago I was stopped by three Members in the Lobby who inquired if I knew the exact hour at which one of my hon. colleagues in the Government had expired. The rumour ran on both sides of the House, and testimonials were given to him which I am quite sure he will be able to use on some occasion—

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Was it true?

Mr. Ede: Oh, no, it was much exaggerated. I think that if the Committee is appointed it should be appointed under terms of reference which will not preclude it from considering any matter that may arise in the course of its inquiries. It is desirable that this matter should be so dealt with as to remove, at the earliest possible moment, any fear that the statements that have been made have not fully met the situation. I hope that the House will feel that we owe it to a colleague—whom, I am quite sure, apart from party politics, we all regard with affection and esteem—that he should be able at the earliest date, to say, that the whole circumstances have been inquired into and his colleagues in the House have reached a decision which will enable them to regard the incident as closed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Aldeburgh, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the Urban District of Long Eaton, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of North Cots-wold, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Otley, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of St. Ives (Huntingdon), a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the Urban District of Seaton Valley, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th November, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — DISABILITY PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Baird: I want to raise tonight the case of one of my constituents who has died, and whose father is residing in my constituency now—the case of the late Corporal Mannion. I am raising this case because I believe that the treatment it received by the War Office has resulted not only in severe hardship to the parents of the deceased soldier, but also because a great point of principle is involved in it. Corporal Mannion joined

the Army on 4th January, 1932. His health was then A.1. He served until nearly the end of 1937, when he was discharged with tuberculosis. During that time he was examined by medical officers in the Army 13 times. At each of these examinations he was found to be A.1. He was discharged in 1937 with tuberculosis, when it was stated that his disease was not attributable to his Army service. In January, 1938, Corporal Mannion put in his first appeal for a pension. His first letter was addressed to the War Office on 5th January, 1938. His appeal was not decided until December, 1938–10 or 11 months later. He appealed again in January, 1939, when the War Office said that his letter was lost. He appealed again on 18th June, 1939. It was not until he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in 1940, that his appeal was granted, and it was antedated to June, 1939, the date of his last appeal.
My argument is that the pension of that soldier should have been granted, not from the date of his last appeal, but from the date of his first appeal. The case of the War Office is this: That pensions are payable only for current maintenance, that it is impossible to antedate a pension to the date of a man's discharge or the date of his first appeal. For 18 months this man, whose illness was afterwards finally attributed to war service, was unfit to work. He was in a sanatorium for part of this time, and was dependent on his parents for his upkeep. Was it right that the War Office should refuse to accept liability? The War Office said that it was impossible to antedate the appeal in this case, because during these two years the grounds on which the appeal was made were changed. Corporal Mannion first argued that his tuberculosis must be due to change of climate, because he had been in India, and then argued, later, that his tuberculosis was brought about by contact with another soldier who had the disease.
Here is the case of a simple soldier. He was a healthy man when he joined up, and during the seven years of his life he gave to the Army he was time and time again declared A.1. Suddenly, he finds that he has tuberculosis and is pushed out of the Army. He is bewildered; he does not know what caused his disease. He first makes the suggestion that it was caused by change


of climate. After he has made his first appeal he hears that one of his old comrades, with whom he was billeted for a considerable time, has died of tuberculosis and his appeal on these grounds is accepted. The War Office argue that they cannot antedate this appeal because it was not a continuing appeal, that the grounds of the appeal had been changed. That, I suggest, is splitting hairs. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State said, in a letter to me:
You ask whether the appeal was continuous. If there had been a continuous exchange of correspondence, we should probably not have regarded the letter first mentioning contact as a fresh departure.
But the appeals were continuous. The only long delay was when the War Office took ten months to decide the first appeal. But the weakest argument of the lot was the suggestion that the pension was granted on slender grounds. The ex-Secretary of State argues in his letter that there was some doubt, and
it was decided to give Corporal Mannion the benefit of the doubt that existed and award him a disability pension. You will appreciate that the pension was given on somewhat slender grounds.
I submit that a pension is either granted or not granted. If it is granted these qualifications should not be introduced at a later date.
The sum total of the whole case is the fact that when the appeal was granted the soldier was dead. His father is an invalid and almost confined to bed, but he is fighting this case on principle, because he realises that there are many thousands of ex-soldiers in a similar position. I believe that the decision of the War Office in this case was wrong. If the Under-Secretary proposes to argue that according to the regulations it is right for him to make that decision, then it is time the regulations were changed. I am afraid that quite a number of Socialists who have gone into the War Office as junior Ministers have before long been dominated by the bureaucrats and themselves turn out to be better bureaucrats than any. I hope that will not happen to my hon. Friend.
I have a copy of a letter headed "Sunday Pictorial" addressed to my constituent. It is dated 1941, and it says:
It seems to me that as the War Office has admitted their liability for a pension in the case of your son it should date from the date of his discharge on medical grounds.

It is signed "F. J. Bellenger." Another letter sent by my right hon. Friend when he became Secretary of State for War says exactly the opposite. I believe that there are many cases like this, which Members of Parliament get at the present time and which, judged by bureaucratic, standards are turned down. We must judge these cases in the spirit of humanity. I am convinced that if we judge this case in a spirit of humanity a pension will be granted, not from the date of the last appeal, but from the date when the man contracted tuberculosis and was invalided out of the Army—admittedly as the result of his Army service.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I think we shall all sympathise with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) who has raised this case. There is nothing which excites our sympathy more than a claim for a pension for an ex-Service man, particularly when, as in this case, the ex-Service man has died from the disability which is under consideration. There are few tasks more unattractive to anyone who stands at this Box than to contest such a claim. Anyone who does so has to realise that if a claim of this kind were not judged in accordance with certain general rules and guiding principles, the whole administration of the matter would fall into confusion and would defeat the very end of humanity and justice which we are seeking to serve. As this is a case of some complication, I would ask the House to bear with me while I refer again to the mere skeleton of facts and dates.
This soldier, the late Corporal Mannion, enlisted in January, 1932, and was discharged invalided out of the Army in December, 1937, suffering from tuberculosis. He then made a claim. He made it very fully, and in repeated letters, and advanced various reasons why he felt that his disability was attributable to his service. Those reasons were not, in sum, convincing and his claim was rejected, as the hon. Member has said, in December, 1938. At that point, so far as we can judge, the late Corporal Mannion for the time being abandoned the matter, and raised it again, this making a second appeal, in June, 1939, through the British Legion. He then said that it had since come to his memory that he had served with a man who was discharged with


tuberculosis, and that he had lived in the same room as this man just prior to the man's discharge owing to the complaint. That is the "contact" letter referred to, and the new ground for supposing that Corporal Mannion's disability was due to his service.

Mr. Baird: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that a letter was sent by the late Corporal Mannion in January, 1939?

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that point. No one, unfortunately, is in a position to confirm or deny that, because the only person who could do so is the late Corporal himself, whose evidence we cannot have.

Mr. Baird: Mr. Baird rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the point which the hon. Member is going to make. I am about to deal with it. Certainly, no letter was received by the War Office between December, 1938, when the first appeal was rejected, and June, 1939, when the second appeal, advancing this new piece of evidence was made. We have since received from the father of the late Corporal Mannion what was claimed to be a copy of a letter sent to the War Office by the late Corporal Mannion in January, 1939. We have acknowledged the receipt from the late Corporal Mannion's father of this copy, but the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is mistaken if he thinks that we have at any time admitted receiving the original letter from the late Corporal Mannion in January, 1939.

Mr. Baird: I have a copy of a letter acknowledging receipt of letters of the 15th and 22nd August, 1941, which says:
I forward, in response to your further request, a copy of Mr. George Mannion's appeal, dated 31st January, 1939.
This was signed by Lt. J. G. Morgan Owen, Lieut. Governor and Secretary.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but my hon. Friend will see that that refers to a copy—

Mr. Baird: No.

Mr. Stewart: —of Corporal Mannion's appeal, dated January, 1939. We agree that we received in 1941 a copy of that appeal made by Corporal Mannion in 1939, but what we have never received,

nor admitted receiving, is a copy of the actual appeal in 1939. What we have acknowledged is that, in 1941, we received a copy of an appeal and that copy was dated 1939, but we did not receive—and this I must emphasise—that appeal in 1939. What we acknowledge, therefore, is the receipt of something in 1941 and not in 1939.

Mr. Baird: This is the letter; I will read it again:
I forward in response to your further request, a copy of Mr. George Mannion's appeal dated 31st January, 1939

Mr. Stewart: Yes, the operative words are "copy of an appeal dated 1939." Certainly we received in 1941 a copy dated—as doubtlessly was the original appeal—1939—but what we did not receive in 1939 was the appeal itself. It may be that Corporal Mannion gave it to somebody else to post for him, or that something else happened, but unfortunately, of course, we cannot ask him. We did not receive a communication between December, 1938, and June, 1939, and we have, therefore, a clear break in the continuity of the correspondence. What starts in June, 1939, is a second appeal. Indeed, in the correspondence from Corporal Mannion, and his father as well, there appears the phrase "second appeal."
It is quite clear, then, that we are dealing, from June, 1939, onwards, with a new appeal bringing forward a new piece of evidence. That appeal was ultimately successful shortly before Corporal Mannion's death, and the pension was granted payable from June, 1939, that is to say, the date of the initiation of the second appeal; the successful appeal. In this case, which it is agreed, is a sad and moving case, we granted the pension from the date of the initiation of the successful appeal. A pension in that manner is in accordance with the general rules and principles observed not only by the War Office and Ministry of Pensions but, I believe, in some cases by other pension paying departments. The second point is what is the justification for that general rule? My hon. Friend referred to a phrase in the correspondence he had had with the ex-Secretary of State in which it was suggested there were but slender grounds for the granting of the pension. I would agree that is not


relevant to the subject we are discussing, but if my hon. Friend will search a little more closely in the letters from the ex-Secretary of State, he will see he agrees that that point is not relevant to the main issue and is only brought into the correspondence to rebut the suggestion that the matter had been treated in an ungenerous manner. I think we may set that point aside.
What are the reasons for this general rule? One is that the purpose of a pension is for the current maintenance of the disabled person, and that is an argument against allowing an indefinite period of arrears to accumulate. The second consideration is that sometimes a claim is made and not sufficient evidence is adduced, so that the claim is unsuccessful. It may then—and this is not an exaggeration—in some instances be renewed on fresh evidence after a gap of say 10, 20 or more years. If, therefore, we do not stick to the rule that the pension is payable from the date of the initiation of the successful appeal, we should be accepting an unlimited liability. It will be agreed that when we are handling public money, which is to be applied to the payment of pensions, we have to be careful not to accept unlimited liability which might endanger the finance and arrangements of the whole scheme.
There is a further difficulty. Take, for example, a claim that is made in 1920. Insufficient evidence is adduced and the claim is rejected. It is renewed 10 years later in 1930 with new evidence, and on that new evidence is granted. It is then suggested by the hon. Member for

East Wolverhampton that we ought to make the pension payable from the original claim in 1920. What does that mean? It means that we should have to ask ourselves over the whole period from 1920 to 1930 what is the cause of the illness and what was the degree of disability throughout the whole period 1920–30. We should be creating as it were out of the past, and possibly out of non-existing evidence, the history of the case in order to judge what was the degree of disability, and what was the amount of arrears that ought to be paid.
If we look at the reasons for the rule we must come to the conclusion that even if its operation in some cases may seem hard, it is, in general, a rule that we could not abandon without the very greatest (hesitation. I would submit, therefore, that in this case we have proceeded in accordance with a general principle and that there has been no question of discrimination against this soldier or his heir. Secondly, there are solid reasons for a general rule or principle; and, thirdly, it is a rule and principle observed not only by the War Office, but by the Ministry of Pensions and has been subject to careful consideration in the past. I would ask the House to believe that this is not a case where a Department is dealing hard-heartedly with a pension claim, but that it has acted after careful consideration of the facts and with a broad regard for its responsibilities.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.